Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The White House has released the Fifth National Climate Change Assessment report providing the country the latest government hyped climate alarmism science propaganda updates as noted in the news article excerpts discussed below.
The Associated Press highlights the following “even clearer evidence” that now exists since the last government science propaganda report 5 years ago:
“The climate change signal is “even clearer today than it was five years ago,” Hayhoe said. In the U.S., people across all regions are experiencing hotter temperatures and longer-lasting heat waves, with nighttime and winter temperatures warming the fastest.”
The L A Times highlights among the other “usual suspects” of climate alarmism hyped propaganda the following:
“Anyone who willfully denies the impact of climate change is condemning the American people to a very dangerous future. Impacts are only going to get worse, more frequent, more ferocious and more costly,” Biden said.
Tuesday’s assessment paints a picture of a country warming about 60% faster than the world as a whole, one that regularly gets smacked with costly weather disasters.”
Looking at the latest available NOAA National Time Series update that provides detailed maximum temperature data for the monthly Contiguous U.S. Maximum Temperature measurements from January 1895 to October 2023 (shown below) we struggle to see where the huge increase is happening in “experiencing hotter temperatures” and where the “warming” growth rate “60% greater than the world as a whole” is taking place because the measured data says those claims are nothing but climate alarmist contrived propaganda.
The NOAA data establishes that the highest maximum temperatures in the Contiguous U.S. occur in the month of July with all July monthly maximum temperature measured data show below for the period from 1895 to 2023.
Furthermore, the maximum monthly temperatures ever recorded in the Contiguous U.S. during the period from 1895 through 2023 occurred in July 1936, July 1934, July 1901, July 2012, July 2006, and July 1931 as shown below with these measured results making a mockery of the contrived “60% greater warming growth rate” climate alarmist hype.
Looking at NOAA California monthly maximum temperature data (shown below) from 1895 to 2023 in pursuit of “warming“ growth rates “60% greater” than the world as a whole we find no measured scientific evidence supporting these contrived climate alarmist hyped claims.
California’s maximum monthly temperature recorded data shows that July 1931 (by 1.4 degrees F higher than the next highest maximum) was the highest ever measured temperature as shown below from NOAA’s measured data.
The climate alarmist L A Times published this government propaganda “science” update report on page 1 as shown below.
The Orange County Register placed this ridiculous climate alarmist update report buried on page 10 (lower left article) where this contrived propaganda garbage “science” report belonged as shown below.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the above article:
” ‘Anyone who willfully denies the impact of climate change is condemning the American people to a very dangerous future. Impacts are only going to get worse, more frequent, more ferocious and more costly,’ Biden said.”
Hmmm . . . count me as standing proudly among those who you condemn. I can easily take such bullsh*t.
Now, having said that, do you, Joe Biden, have any scientific
proofpreponderance of evidence—in fact, any scientific evidence at all—that the rest of what you spouted forth is true?Oh, and FYI, “climate change” has been happening on Earth continuously for some 4.5 billion years,usually with extraordinary impacts.
And I can’t imagine anything more “ferocious” than the climate change that wiped out something like 90% of all living species on Earth over a period of 60,000 years centered on some 252 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period.
Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/mass-extinction
Some of your comments I agree with.
Anyone who willfully denies the impact of Joke Biden and the demrat party is condemning the American people to a very dangerous future. Impacts are only going to get worse, more frequent, more ferocious and more costly.
Yes, Joe Biden is the problem, not CO2 or the climate.
Joe Biden is obviously psychic, since he is telling us that he can tell the future. It’s good to have a psychic president, don’t you think?
Well, I would not go so far as to deem Joe or his handlers as being “psychic” . . . psychotic, yes . . . but not psychic, as that would give them far too much credit.
And, yes, I do recognize sarcasm when I see it. 🙂
“psychotic: exhibiting or suggestive of mental or emotional unsoundness or instability”
—ref: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychotic
In 1989 the UN predicted entire nations would be adversely affected if the supposed warming trend weren’t reversed within a decade. It also claimed that all of humanity had until 2000 to solve the greenhouse gas effect before it went completely out of control. So here we are, a third of a century past those forecasts with populations, life expectancies, and agricultural outputs all increasing. Did something go wrong or was it the old story of most of the planet ignoring the alarmists and their histrionics
The solution to EV car fires has been solved. Everyone can now buy a EV/Hybrid with piece of mind. No longer do you need to be concerned about you and your family being trapped by fire in your house, parking structure, ferry, or what ever.
The EV Fire Blanket is here.
Links below.
https://allsecurityequipment.com/blogs/blog/ev-car-fire-blanket-from-fire-cloak-usa?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=campaign&_kx=D5UprYuIQ-oCJaS11N8pVrFrrXDGtrGFdghvuvo6RpGpWNw0nAiBwtSx_KtxETjR.QUCecj
https://allsecurityequipment.com/collections/fire-cloak-usa/products/fire-cloak-fic-647379908928
Insurance Companys intend to require EVs be wrapped in this blank at night
These blankets will be prepositioned on all public roadways, bridges, and parking structures
Any one using a ferry will be required to carry one in their trunk and carry a training certificate
The UN is considerationing the required use on all EVs being shipped across international waters.
The world is saved.
Hmmm . . .my understanding, limited as it is, is that the “EV Fire blanket”:
a) does not prevent EV battery fires from spontaneously occurring,
b) does not extinguish EV battery fires, and
c) only reduces the chances that the EV battery fire spreads to an adjacent vehicle or structure.
Therefore, probably worth $4.99, assuming one can purchase one at that price.
/sarc
That is correct, look at the next link… You can have one for only $1500
The lithium is involved in a chemical reaction that does not require O2. The blanket would smother other material that burns using O2. A Li bat in a small phone charger recently caused a fire on a plane….water was dumped on it but the water is just for any material that the Li fire caused to start burning….Li reacts with water…..Elon does not talk about Li fires….just the acceleration of his Teslas and how the Teslas do not roll over easily.
Removing the blanket from a burning vehicle, preparing it close by then moving alongside and tucking it in is not the safest place to be with an EV fire.
There are many videos showing enormous jets of flame coming from these cars when on fire plus the smoke is toxic
Reminder, this is a satirical post. Not serious
“We’re having a FIRE SALE!! All EVs must go! I mean… like NOW!! Hurry!”
The Congressionally mandated NCAs are the joint work product of 19 federal agencies. All of which have a vested interest in receiving more climate funding from Congress. So naturally they produce NCAs that require more climate funding for themselves. Similar to Mafia protection racket shakedowns.
Their ‘only’ problem is that their obviously biased assessments are easily refuted by readily available facts, as here.
The old Soviet PRAVDA probably had more truth than any NCA produced by USG.
Rud, IIRC the Feds have a law pretaining to the accuracy of data it presents? Are there any legal avenues to challenge the bogus NCA?
I believe they do, the ‘Making False Claims’ section of the United Stades Code, making it a crime to knowingly make false or fraudulent statements. Just another law that the Biden regime ignores as it obviously doesn’t apply to themselves. The United States of America is no longer governed by the rule of law.
But… but… they have 97% of climate scientists to back them up? /sarc
Just imagine an editorial meeting at the LAT –
“guys, there’s a shed load of government money on offer for promoting this climate story,
What do we have to say to get in on it?”
Executive Summary: It’s worse than we thought.
At some point in the past–maybe more that one point in time–the place I am sitting was covered by a glacier a couple miles thick. Now THAT is climate change!
Than one point in time. Where is the edit button when you need it?
The NOAA forecast for the US is for snow and freezing temperatures for much of the US starting in about a week. https://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/Imageanis.php
“we struggle to see where the huge increase is happening”
It might help to trend on the trend option.
Since 1970, NOAA shows US maximum temperatures, just for July, as warming at 0.2°C / decade.
For all months the rise is 0.27°C / decade.
So, are you saying that you are confident that the current trend will continue for at least the next hundred years? Or the next several hundred years?
He is trying to deflect with a far shorter time series a sign of desperation as he realizes they can’t defend a highly motivated governmentally mandated propaganda report.
He will just like ALL warmist/alarmists avoid this article that easily destroys the propaganda of their profoundly biased report.
Where is the Climate Emergency?
LINK
Yep, notice from both graphs the massive deceleration of warming after around 1998 🙂
Basically levelled off completely.
So much for the effect of enhanced atmospheric CO2 😉
Step warming from El-Nino to El-Nino a clear case for the dominant Solar/Ocean Dynamo.
While it is flat to cooling in between thus making a CO2 a no show…….
Thanks for that link. That’s an awesome article and I’m going to pass it to everyone I know here in the epicenter of the new religion- Wokeachusetts.
“So, are you saying that you are confident that the current trend will continue for at least the next hundred years? Or the next several hundred years?”
Nope. Just saying that if you are struggling to see how much warming there is, turning. On the trend feature can be helpful.
“ can be helpful.”
Not the way you have calculated it.
It is childish and meaningless, just like all your other posts.
I didn’t do any calculations. Just clicked the trend option on the website used in this article.
Thanks,
You have just verified that you are no better than a monkey with a ruler.
But we already knew that.
But… but… 97% of monkeys agree with him. 🙂
Bellman is here to get us away from the article and follow his misleading trail then beat you down with his dishonest bullshit while he personally avoids the article itself.
1998 El Nino is your friend, use it always, bellboy !
Looks like that there trend became a busted flush from 2012 Pilgrim.
Great indication of urban warming also. 🙂
Unless of course you have proof of any other human causation,..
… which we all know you don’t !
And of course , there is basically no change in maximums since they started measuring in sensible places in 2005.
Yeah I think you’re being a bit slap-happy with the trend lines there again. It’s fairly obvious that there are two different trends in that second graph which you are duplicitously merging into one to score cheap points.
Go away and learn better methods and, while you’re at it, bring some clean data that hasn’t been hopelessly contaminated by UHI will you, rather than your usual junk.
“bring some clean data that hasn’t been hopelessly contaminated by UHI will you, rather than your usual junk.”
The data I’m using is exactly the data used in this article to claim “the measured data says those claims are nothing but climate alarmist contrived propaganda.”
Thanks for all the constructive criticism of the national data.
I used 1970 as a starting point, as that’s roughly the time when modern global warming started. It’s also the starting point the assessment using when it’s comparing global to national warming.
Of course if you look at the entire data set starting in 1895, you see a slower rate of warming, just as you do globally.
For annual max data, this is 0.08°C / decade, compared with NOAA’s global average data over the same period of 0.09°C / decade.
If you restrict it to just July, the US max data drops to 0.05°C / decade. This has a lot to do with the climate emergency the US was suffering in the 1930s.
Hansen’s chart of U.S. temperatures (Hansen 1999) shows 1934 to be warmer than 1998/2016.
Why doesn’t your graph show this?
“Why doesn’t your graph show this?”
Short answer – it does. Annual maximum temperatures in the NOAA data are 66.76°C for 1934 and 65.63°C for 1998. 1934 is around 1°F warmer, which is similar to the 0.5°C difference shown in Hansen’s graph.
Of course, his graph says nothing about 2016, given it was produced two decades before we could have known how hot 2016 would be. Even so, NOAS’s graph shows 2016 as being 66.69°C – still insignificantly cooler than 1998. You may be confusing this with 2012, which is the warmest max year in the NOAA series, at 67.69, almost 1°F warmer than the second place 1934. Again for some unknown reason Hansen failed to include 2012 in his data set produced in 1999.
Of course, it should be said that these graphs are not showing the same thing in any case. My graph is for maximum temperatures where as Hansen’s is for average ones.
If you look at average temperatures, 1934 is very slightly cooler than 1998, and there have been several warmer years since then. The 1930s had hot days, but also cooler nights, it would seem. Also some cold winters.
Why the 1999 graph shows a bigger spike in 1934, I couldn’t tell you. As always I think it’s a mistake to look at anyone graph as being the one true vision, and therefore any other graph is wrong. Much better to look at a range of graphs as an aggregate of knowledge. This is especially true when one of the graphs is a quarter of a century old.
FAKED and adjusted data.
You KNOW that.. so why persist with your LIES?
“Of course, his graph says nothing about 2016”
His graph doesn’t have to say anything about 2016.
According to UAH, 1998, and 2016 are within about 0.1C of each other which makes 2016 cooler than the 1934, by about 0.4C
“According to UAH, 1998, and 2016 are within about 0.1C of each other”.
According to UAH, 2016 was 0.2°C warmer than 1998 in the US, and 2015 and 2017 about 0.16C warmer still.
But you can’t compare UAH and satellite data with a 25 year old surface data set. You don’t know what Hansen’s method would have said about 2016, or what UAH would have said about 1934.
As always you seem to be hung up on the idea that Jim Hansen in 1999 was capable of producing infallible data, and any other data set that doesn’t agree with it must be wrong. Except you also think Hansen’s 1999 global data set is also wrong because it doesn’t agree with his US data set.
Note- if it isn’t obvious all the 66+ figures should be in °F – not °C. Really wish they would start using the correct scientific units.
What you see is recent warming during the 1970’s preceded by a 45-year cooling trend from 1934 to 1979. Is recent warming a rebound from the cooling? Who knows? But it refutes the claim that CO2 is the main cause because CO2 has increased steadily over the last century but temperatures have both cooled and warmed over the same period, apparently indifferent to CO2. What happens in the next few decades is a guess, based on the variability of the last century.
“But it refutes the claim that CO2 is the main cause because CO2 has increased steadily over the last century but temperatures have both cooled and warmed over the same period, apparently indifferent to CO2.”
That’s what I say, too.
The agenda adjusted temperatures are meaningless.
The blue line is the actual measured data, with the mid 1930s higher than 2010.
The meaningless “agenda adjusted” data is precisely the data being used in this article. If you think it’s meaningless than you have to argue the premise of this article is meaningless.
“The blue line is the actual measured data”
Not that I want to be too skeptical, but could you provide a source for the data you claim is more accurate.
This chart goes to2018, and we know from USCRN that there has been not much warming since then
You are using FAKED data..
Using RAW data..
Looks different doesn’t it.
You are being LIED to by the data FAKERS
That is the exact same NOAA data I’ve been using. Do you even know what you are arguing against at this point?
Bellman,
One abbreviation for you: UHI.
Ever think that maybe the word ‘huge’ is subjective?
huuuuuge, a favorite word of one politician
Of course 1970 is during the GLOBAL COOLING scare.
Great place to start ;-).. if you want to be laughed at. !
Maximum temperatures in the USA were around the 1930s/40s.
And why would you start the graph in 1970? There is data back to 1895.
Because that’s roughly when global warming started. It’s also the start point used in the assessment when comparing US and global temperatures.
As I say above, you can look at all the data since 1895 and get similar levels of warming for the US and global. But that’s trying to fit a linear trend over not very linear data. And of course, the US had it’s own problems in the 1930s which skew the comparison somewhat.
“And of course, the US had it’s own problems in the 1930s which skew the comparison somewhat.”
The whole world had weather problems in the 1930’s. You should read the newspaper accounts.
Why are you guys letting Bellman take you on a false trail while he continues to avoid the article.
His 1970 onwards is a false trail because he can’t accept the 1895 onwards because it doesn’t support his end game.
He is a miserable warmist/alarmist who has an agenda to push.
Oh , so 1850 industrial revolution warming is of no consequence now. Thanks for informing us of that.
Is it the same Joe Biden who considers a retreat from Kabul a success?
Well yes it was for Joe.
Everyone who owed him 10% got out unscathed.
It’s the same Joe Biden who thinks CO2 is the greatest danger the United States and humanity faces.
The Chicoms: No problem.
The Russians: No problem.
The Mad Mullahs of Iran: No problem.
Murderous Islamic Terrorists: No problem.
CO2/Human-caused Climate Change: BIG LIFE-ENDING PROBLEM !!!
What’s really bad is too many Republicans think CO2 is a problem. They don’t challenge this narrative, which is as good as endorsing it.
The truth is: Joe Biden, and the radical Democrats, and their Delusional, Destructive Thinking, are the real existential threat to the United States.
NOAA Contiguous U.S. maximum temperatures (without cheery picking months) for 1970 to 2023.
Missed graph. NOAA Contiguous U.S. maximum temperatures (without cheery picking months) for 1970 to 2023.
These clowns need to follow the same instructions I had to in grade school, show your work.
While it’s certainly impressive that someone believes six individual months can somehow single-handedly debunk well-established climate science trends, it might be helpful to remind them that statistical analysis would generally form the basis of credible counterpoints in this situation.
Since the alarmist government report claims that U.S. temperatures have been “climbing 60% faster than elsewhere on earth” and that our citizens are experiencing “hotter temperatures” why would the “highest ever” measured U.S. temperatures have occurred in the 1930s? “Statistical analysis” isn’t needed when the answer is as obvious as this data clearly shows particularly when the exaggerated temperature claims are nothing but alarmist hype in the first place.
That’s not what you said. Yes, we all understand they immorally play fast and loose with the facts. But don’t write rubbish nonsense in response.
““climbing 60% faster than elsewhere on earth” “
OK, since 2005, when USA temperatures were measured in a reasonable way and at reasonable surface sites, the average trend of satellite (UAH-USA48), and surface (ClimDiv and USCRN), is about 0.02ºC per year.
That means that “elsewhere on Earth” is warming at 0.0125ºC/year.
This is VERY, VERY SCARY….. for sure it is ! 😉
And since 2015, the average trend of the satellite and 2 surface sets is NEGATIVE 0.056ºC/ year
No it isn’t. The fastest short term cooling trend you can cherry-pick with UAH data is starting December 2015, for a cooling trend of 0.0012°C / year. Start just about anywhere else and the trend is positive.
Sorry, didn’t notice you where only talking about US temperatures.
Here’s a graph showing the trend for UAH – USA48 data, for all starting points.
LOL.. start at the coldest period new ice age scare…
…. and then complain about NATURAL warming.
You really are a low-level idiot !
Two major El Ninos 1998, and 2015/16 (plus the one that ended in mid 1979)
Let’s see what is happening to USA48 between those El Ninos.
Oh Look ! It has actually been COOLING between those El Ninos.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of any warming apart from those El Ninos.
So absolutely no evidence of any human causation.
Yawn.. There is no accounting for your INCOMPETENCE and lack of reading ability. !!
We’ve seen reports from pretty much everywhere on the planet that THAT location is experiencing climate change faster than anywhere else.
@Gorilla R… it is important to note that trends from 1895 to about 1945 were increasing, from 1945 to 1975 or so, they were cooling and since 1975 they are increasing again. The earlier rate of increase is approximately the same as the later increase… and the majority of the maximum recorded temperatures were before the 1940’s. Claims that this July was the warmest “evah” are balderdash.
“Claims that this July was the warmest “evah” are balderdash.”
Yes, they are.
Debunk this U.S. temperature chart (Hansen 1999):
I see a longterm warming trend beginning in the 1910’s culminating in the warmth of the 1930’s, then a longterm cooling from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, and then a longterm warming from the 1980’s to 1998 (the limit of this chart).
So it isn’t just a few individual months that show the picture.
The discrepancy between the graph you show and updated version of the graph is the result of a time of observation bias adjustment and pairwise homogenization.
Where is your evidence, Walter.
It’s supposedly the reasoning for those adjustments.
Where is your evidence, Walter.
And proven to be yet another FAKE adjustment.
So.. thanks for verifying the change is because of FAKED adjustments.
Not helping your cause.
Emphasis on the word ‘supposedly.’ I don’t subscribe to the idea that the adjustment is valid; I just know that’s the reason for why the trend turns from cooling to warming.
You mean “they” haven’t yet applied “adjustments” for:
— change in temperature monitoring instrumentation accuracy/calibrations that occurred from 1880 to ca. 1998?
— change in temperature monitoring station site locations and instrumentation enclosures that occurred from 1880 to ca. 1998?
— increases in the number of temperature monitoring sites that occurred from 1880 to ca. 1998?
— impacts of UHI bias in reported temperatures of a significant number of temperature monitoring sites from 1880 to ca. 1998? (This obviously excludes all temperature monitoring stations comprising the USCRN, which only began being implemented around 2001 and was declared “complete” in 2008)?
— human changes in Earth’s surface albedo that have occurred from 1880 to ca. 1998 . . . you know, those due to deforestation as well a use of cultivated land for large scale agriculture
— changes in percentage of atmospheric cloud coverage that may have occurred from 1880 to ca. 1998, as overall global climate has changed over that interval?
Looks like “updating” has left out many, many important things.
“The discrepancy between the graph you show and updated version of the graph is the result of a bias adjustment”
There, fixed it for you.
That’s called UHI.
That’s also called Hayhoe climate propaganda.
The climate change signal may be clearer to her, but there is still no evidence there is a climate change signal.
Hayhoe sees what she wants/is paid, to see.
Hayhoe is doing her usual job of distorting the truth about CO2 and the Earth’s climate.
If you see Hayhoe is involved, expect an “it’s worse than we thought” commentary. That’s her job.
Exactly! Look at who pays Hayhoe for her “services”. Then look at their not-so-hidden agendas.
I’m still having trouble with the following NOAA chart for Wokeachusetts. How can it range from 46F one year to 56F another year? This is what the state is using to push all the alarm bells. Could the annual average temperature really change that much? Up 12F???
Sure, it could.
“Massachusetts sees a wide variety of temperatures throughout the year, the average being as high as 95 °F (35 °C) in the summertime, and as low as -8 °F (-22 °C) in the wintertime.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Massachusetts
You’re inquiring about a variation of 12 deg-F in year-to-year averages, when the variation within a single year is typically about 103 deg-F: a ratio of about 1:8.5.?
Seems reasonable to me.
Of course the temp throughout the year varies tremendously but the annual average temp? They are two very different things- so doesn’t seem reasonable at all.
Actually, your extreme numbers aren’t correct. I’ve experienced 105F and as low as -22F.
1) Not my numbers . . . Wikipedia’s
2) Wikipedia explicitly stated sated: “. . . temperatures throughout the year, the average being as high as 95 °F (35 °C) in the summertime, and as low as -8 °F (-22 °C) in the wintertime.” (my bold emphasis added)
In contrast you seem to refer to a particular peak high and a particular peak low.
Since my particular high and low are different- that means Wikipedia is wrong- which is something you apparently can’t grasp. And my numbers aren’t that rare. It gets over 95 most years. I haven’t see it as low as I mentioned- that was 40 years ago- but it can happen again. I’d say -8 is often the lowest for most years.
“. . . which is something you apparently can’t grasp.”
Hmmmm . . . that would be the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack.
It’s sad to see you felt the need to go there, but I reckon not all that unexpected.
Please inform Wikipedia of their mistake(s).
Added the decadal trend line to the National Time Series chart – 1st one above. Comes in at +0.16F/decade.
Then I changed the date of the trend from 1895 to June 1936. The trend is +0.42F/decade.
Needless to say, that is long before any potential human footprint in global temperatures..