Three More Outrageously False Statements from NOAA
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is claiming that 2010 is the hottest year on record.
USA Today trumpeted: “World sizzles to record for the year” — a headline picked up by many major media outlets. Jay Lawrimore, climate analysis chief at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said:
It’s part of an overall trend. Global temperatures have been rising for the last 100-plus years. Much of the increase is due to increases in greenhouse gases.
There are many things wrong with this statement. First, the most obvious, eh, problem: the year was only half over at the time.
If your horse leads halfway through the race, do you get to collect your winnings? If the price of a barrel of oil is $100.00, will that be the price at the end of December? If the day starts sunny and dry, does that mean it won’t rain in the afternoon?
Moving on.
He strongly implies that this year’s warmth is consistent with the theory that greenhouse gases from humans burning fossil fuels makes the earth warmer: it’s our fault.
Consistent. The sun moving from east to west across the sky is consistent with the theory that the Sun orbits the Earth. Something being consistent with something else is proof of nothing, and not worth stating.
It’s true, 2010 got off to a warm start. Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says the first six months of this year were the second warmest since the satellite-measured temperature era began in 1979, and satellite-measured temperature is more accurate than temperature measured at weather stations on Earth. Weather stations on the Earth’s surface are subject to modifying influences, such as cities growing around thermometers that were once rural 50 to 100 years ago. As the cities grow around the thermometers, the long-term temperature trend slowly rises. The buildings, roads, and other paved surfaces add heat to the local climate, corrupting any long-term trend.
Also — changes in the types of thermometers used and changes in their location can corrupt long-term accuracy. Satellite-measured temperatures do not suffer these significant problems and are therefore more reliable.
The warmth of the first half of this year is from being the leftover heat generated by this past winter’s El Nino. The warm Pacific waters of El Nino heat the entire planet. The warmest year in the last 30 was in 1998, a year that featured a record large and record warm El Nino.
But what about the remainder of 2010? Will it continue to be the “hottest ever”? More than likely, no. A La Nina is developing in the Pacific — the cooler sister of El Nino. La Nina will refrigerate the planet during the second half of the year. By the end of the year it is likely that 2010 will be nowhere near the “hottest ever,” because of La Nina’s chilly personality.
Other troubling statements have been coming from NOAA, which makes me wonder if this agency might be following the same path as NASA.
Quelle surprise. Not.
According to Nature (the magazine, that is), Bolivia is experiencing an unusually severe winter right now. (In case there’s anyone left who doesn’t know, seasons in the Southern Hemisphere are opposite those up here in the Northern one.)
Specifically, Bolivia’s river valleys, which generally don’t get colder than about 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 Celsius)at night this time of year have been instead experiencing temperatures as low as -30 to even -40 F. (-35-40 C.)- cold enough to cause massive fish kills in the rivers. Initially, this was thought to be caused by excessively low water temperatures as the waters flow down from the mountains, but later data verified that it was ambient air temperature.
Meanwhile, in spite of all gnashing of teeth by the AGW crowd, the Antarctic ice pack continues to grow unabated.
I’m waiting for the Thames and Rhine to freeze over. When that happens, it will be a good indicator that we are in fact moving back into the “Little Ice Age” pattern that existed from the 13th to the 16th Centuries AD. (You know, the one that came after the Medieval Warm Period the AGW fans don’t want to talk about.)
And at that point, the Anthropogenic Global Warming “theory” will be demonstrably nothing but the fantasy of some neo-Luddite nihilists it has always been.
I wonder what NOAA will say then?
clear ether
eon
I love technology. I believe life has meaning.
I also believe NOAA when it states a scientific fact that the globe is warming. In general, and on the average, the globe is warming.
There will be many, many examples you can give where certain areas may be cooling or experiencing winter-like phenomena, e.g. additional snowfall, early ice.
But the earth is warming. That is a fact that the author of this essay doesn’t deny. Most scientists around the world, not just here in the political maelstrom of the United States, agree that at least some of the warming is anthropomorphic.
It seems to me that people who don’t care about the earth getting warmer, don’t care about plant and animal species dying off, and don’t care about the prospect of a dangerously hot earth for their children are the ones who think that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Either that or they are selfish and short-sighted.
“Most scientists around the world, not just here in the political maelstrom of the United States, agree that at least some of the warming is anthropomorphic.”
Yeah, not like that other type of warming that has the head of a crocodile, tail of a peacock, and feet of a woodchuck.
O.k. So, what he’s saying doesn’t make a lick of sense, you still have to admit that the word “anthropomorphic” sounds really cool.
I know! It’s an awesome word! That’s why it’s so funny that he used it when he meant “anthropogenic”!
“But the earth is warming.” That’s a pretty simplistic statement. I have one in reply: No it isn’t.
It’s is not warming unabated. The temperature is not going up and up and up and up. Read the article again. 1998 was the hottest. We’re cooling.
So much fraud has been uncovered; so much stacking of the deck; so much frenzied shrieking and hyperbole about “deniers” that the politics and money of the AGW crowd are being revealed to those who will pay attention.
To panic over a 30-year-wide slice of data (deviously manipulated data at that) is the absolute definition of short-sighted.
Care to comment (refute?) on the interaction of El Nino’s effects in 1998 and 2010 in relation to high temps?
I suppose it’s just coincidental eh?
Just like CO2 and warming.
Phil Jones, chief climatologist at East Anglia University, admitted to the BBC that there has not been any statistically significant global warming for the past 15 years. Phil Jones is the climatologist that gathers all global weather information, filters it and passes it on to the the UN Inter-governmental Panel for Climate Change for inclusion in periodic reports. The IPCC are great proponents of AGW, thus giving the UN an excuse to steal money from the developed nations and redistributing it to countries like China and other third world countries.
If you love science and technology, I suggest you take a Geology course and familiarize yourself with the temporal context of this whole global warming theory. You might be able to deduce something you have obviously never understood.
LIFE LOVES WARMER!!! Look at all the great Evolutionary Explosions and you will find that they occurred during periods when the temperature was downright TOASTY compared to today. Look at most of the great Species Die-Offs and you will find one thing in common – they came on the heels of what we would call today “catastrophic” cooling! If you hate Warming, you hate LIFE!
*” And at that point, the Anthropogenic Global Warming “theory” will be demonstrably nothing but the fantasy of some neo-Luddite nihilists it has always been.
I wonder what NOAA will say then?”
They will pat themselves on the back and crow about the success of their efforts in “reducing anthropogenic global climate change”….. Much like the crowing of a rooster causes the sun to rise.
You mean somebody still pays attention to proven liars? Why engage, when everything they say, including good morning, needs independent verification?
Defund them, and let’s move on to the next scientific fraud.
Proven liars, eh? Here are a few: Cheney, Palin, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh. Gingrich . . . da da da duuuuuuh . . . Reagan!
Now who you going to believe? Better yet, name a conservative who hasn’t lied.
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
The article and comments dealt with specific statements and their relationship to verifiable facts. “Betty Knows”, on the other hand, makes assertions without any attempt to link them to fact. Typical drive-by ad hominem attack from a child of the Left.
While you only supply invective I can supply the lairs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Oops – so sorry – those are Democrats.
Well – let me look around. I’m sure I can find something.
Here you go, K.T. One from the heart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related
Anything else? No? Thanks for coming in. You can pay at the register.
Wow, Betty Knows Nothing; that post was jam-packed full of stupid.
I take it by your deflection that you have NOTHING to add?
Didn’t think so.
OK, Almost A Part of the Real Military Vet, you try. Name a conservative who hasn’t lied.
Howard Coble–congressman from Greensboro area NC–a very fine man.
Makes you wonder don’t it? Intelligent educated people publicly lying for the record and they know they’ve been caught out and yet they persist. And there’s lots of em. Why why why?
What powerful force motivates them? It is though they have had a powerful religious experience, ‘seen God as it were’ and must spend their lives evangelizing the world. Yet they don’t stop to think that using the ends justify the means method of argument surely negates their cause. If you have to cheat and lie to bring about your goals … how could your desired results be worthy … desirable or even positive?
What a strong delusion these poor souls suffer from. What is this collective madness? What power can so completely destroy something so basic as normal common sense?
We all know the author of this madness … this sickness. This evil. We just can’t get over our own infection of political correctness to voice it. We’d rather talk politics.
Insisto Viaticus (follow the money)
I guess we shoudl believe a tv meterologist over a bevy of hard core scientist. Love it. Every moron has a podium here! This is further evidence of the rise of mediocracy.
Actually, the word “mediocracy” nicely describes the Obama administration. I think you were shooting for “mediocrity.”
Someone else with no real argument. Call to authority is pretty pathetic when it is clear that the “authorities” being call are actually chasing the money and not the climate.
Love your call to be ruled by the ignorant
“See? Because of all our efforts to centralize and socialize world government, the cataclysmic global warming has been stopped in its tracks. Now, because as you can clearly see, our science and solutions can be trusted, you will have to listen to us again to avoid the coming cataclysmic ice age caused by too little greenhouse gas. We must further centralize and socialize.”
Hey, FWIW, here’s another analysis of U.S. and global temps that pretty much confirms that El Nino drove temperatures, not the hypothetical CO2 cause:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/08/global-warming-apocalypse-or-hoolywood-dud-2010-temps-in-context.html
I sent that link to a liberal friend of mine – he hasn’t responded yet.
That’s ok though – he still hasn’t responded to the youtube video I sent him with all the democrats whining about how there was nothing wrong at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
My mission in life is to point out stupidity wherever and whenever I may find it.
I’ve been very busy lately.
Not to be outdone, Jeff Masters ~ founder of Weather Underground ~ took your half a year “record” declarative and turned it into:
“The period January – July was the warmest such 7-month period in the planet’s history…”
Oh, yes he did. In the “PLANET’S HISTORY”. I just HAD to repeat that.
http://coalitionoftheswilling.net/?p=9784
“The period January – July was the warmest such 7-month period in the planet’s history…”
Hilarious!! That statement might have been powerful and persuasive if we’d actually monitored temperatures since the first moment in the planet’s history.
But the fact is that we have only been monitoring temperatures for a VERY TINY percentage of the history of this planet. The concensus for the age of the planet Earth seems to be 4.5 to 5 billion years. Of that immense time, human beings, the only living things on this planet capable of building temperature-measuring devices, have only existed for roughly 2 million of those years. In our 2 million years on this planet, humans have only had the technology to measure temperature since the early 1600s (See the Wikipedia article on thermometers here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer). The actual habit of routinely measuring temperatures in populated areas and recording and archiving them started even more recently. In some areas, temperature monitoring only started within the last 50 or 60 years.
Jeff Masters remark IMPLIES that January to July this year is the warmest 7-month period in 5 billion years. However, given that we’ve only been able to measure temperature for at most a few centuries, he actually MEANS that it’s the warmest such period in the last few centuries. And that is only a tiny percentage of the entire life of this planet.
We simply don’t know with any real certainty what temperatures this planet experienced prior to the invention of the thermometer. Does he really think people are so utterly clueless about the history of technology that everyone is going to be fooled by his ridiculous claim?
I want to cry, throw up, or both; what’s happened to science?
NOAA (not every person of NOAA just the part that the commies inhabit)= Just another government propaganda wing. The Marxists have made sure that we can’t trust the government and the old main stream media anymore. The people of the former Soviet block knew this well. When will they ever learn?
Their lies are being consumed by the fire of the truth yet they seem to be blind to it, repeating the same old drivel over and over again. Perhaps it’s who they really are, just bad people with black hearts and evil motives. God have mercy on their poor souls.
Well, when you run across leg slapping, side splitting whoppers, they should be shared, no? The line from Masters is just plain stupid! Of course, Nathan the Troll has no facts on which to base his beliefs. Oh, I forgot, beliefs don’t require facts. Yes, it is possible the Earth is warming. Is man making any significant contribution? Insufficient data.
On the political front, all of the senior non-scientific staff at NOAA are political appointees, from the Assistant Secretary level and up. That includes the Administrator. So if the 0 regime has a political message to tell and NOAA can support that message, it will.
It was certainly interesting to see the NOAA declare, a few weeks ago, that a large percentage of the recent Gulf oil spill had already evaporated. After all the months of doom and gloom about ecological catastrophes in the making, it was almost as if the Obama administration, which got a huge black eye over its handling of the spill, simply instructed its own scientists to make the matter go away….
Having to beat back these morons on a daily basis is getting tiresome. The lie and cheat then act as if the lying and cheating never happened. The IPCC should have NO credibility with anyone after their recent gaffs – taking information from a magazine article and predicting from that a total loss of glaciers by 2035? Come on – the joke doesn’t get any bigger than that. If it weren’t for the MSM the IPCC clowns would be looking for a different circus gig. These guys have more lives than Freddie Krueger. Too bad the IPCC isn’t just a figment of an overactive imagination.
On another note – I nearly froze my @ss off yesterday – I live in high desert in Eastern Washington State. It got up to an astounding 60.1F yesterday. Average temps for Aug 31st is normally 84F! I could use a bit of global warming! We normally have 4-6 days of 100+ days – this year we had one day over 100 deg. The true believers would have me believe there is nothing in a one year trend – OK – so be it. Then don’t try to convince me that YOUR observations in this year’s trend is anything more than the anomaly you seem to think my one year’s worth the observations are.
You can’t have it both ways.
Oh – wait – the MSM DOES let you have it both ways.
As predicted . . .
http://mediamatters.org/research/201008310034
So what?
And MediaMatters?
We deal in truth here – not spin.
You’ll have to do better than that if you wish to have any credibility on these pages. But what a wonderful way to sell a book to those who formerly hated you. I don’t suppose it ever occurred to you that this guy just wanted to make some $s?
Here’s a radical idea (that word should appeal to you):
Instead of throwing out ads for other websites and random attacks, how about actually addressing the substance of the article you’re commenting on?
My suspicion is that you don’t because you’re not capable of it. But I hereby invite you to prove me wrong. Here’s your chance to prove that a conservative is wrong about something all by yourself. Can you do it?
“Here’s your chance to prove that a conservative is wrong about something . . . ”
Does that need to be proved? I think it’s pretty obvious that a conservative has been wrong about something, don’t you? No? OK, let’s have a little fun . . .
“Reagan was an honest and trustworthy president. He had the people’s interest at heart.” Sounds like a something a conservative would claim is right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow&feature=related
There you go. Proved wrong. I got tons of these examples. (This is where you chime in with Clinton . . . on 3 . . . and one, two . . . )
See, you still can’t address the substance of the article.
Thanks for proving yourself wrong.
That was inane, Betty.
“Global temperatures have been rising for the last 100-plus years. Much of the increase is due to increases in greenhouse gases.” Actually, temperatures have been rising at an essentially linear rate for about 200 years, starting around 1800, 35 years before the invention of the steam engine and 100 years before anthropogenic CO2 accumulated enough to conceivably be a factor. Blaming the warming primarily on CO2 is a little like observing a truck descending a 2-percent grade at a constant 50 miles per hour for an hour, concluding that gravity and friction can explain its motion, and ignoring the fact that the truck was doing 50-miles per hour on level ground an hour before. In such a case, a reasonable person might conclude that some force other than gravity and friction governed the truck’s motion.
20k years ago, most of the northern and a good portion of the southern hemisphere was encased in a sheet of ice over a mile deep in some places http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age (I know, it’s wiki, but I think this one is pretty safe)
I would say it takes a right long time for that much ice to melt.
The wobble of the earth on it’s axis is responsible for a rich green river and lake system larger than the Great Lakes occurring across the Sahara on a 10,000 year cycle and makes a complete ecological switch in less than 200 years. It was discovered by satellite imagery and documented by carbon dating of animal and human bones found along its shore line. The best way to see proof of the next green cycle should be the efforts of money moguls to purchase all the hot dry dunes just ahead of its commencement. After all Gore was ready on global warming and Strong with an international carbon credits bank. If democrats can suck as hard as they can blow, a two inch pipe from the Lakes Superior to Napa Valley should cure any need of water to keep the pickers busy.
The people behind AGW or “(human caused) climate change” have proven nothing. The scientific method is the first and most demanding “open source” protocol. SCO did not “show the code” because they were lying. The so-called “scientists” claiming AGW have not “shown their work”. They need to set some things out for /everyone/ to see. First, identify the actual lists used. Second, show the actual lists used so people can check the individual numbers. Third, they have to show what they did with the numbers so people can check the logic and the math. (In today’s world, that means releasing any specialized computer programs so people can check them for errors and miscoding.) Fourth, they have to show the results. Then they can talk about conclusions and interpretation. They have NOT done so, therefore they are not following the scientific method, and their claims are “questionable” (scientific jargon for “garbage” or “fantasy”.)
,
Supporters claim that “only a few errors were found”. That is hardly surprising, considering that the sceptics have only been able to pry a tiny bit of the background information out of the so-called “scientists” making the claims. When you consider how much has NOT been examined, the only conclusion possible is that the claims should be ignored for now.
Charles, you are so right. In addition there’s all the cherry picking a la Briffa, et al. For those from HuffPo, etc., Briffa cherry picked three trees out of over a hundred for the hockey stick thing. Why those three? Simple, the rest of the trees overwhelmingly did NOT support the conclusion. So… toss ‘em. That’s the current state of science today.
How ’bout NOAA slipping 600 degree days into the Wisconsin temperature data set? That’s the latest scandal.
-Yeah, all that tree data is false. Just look at the melting polar cap and the longer growing season documented in much of the northern hemisphere. That should prove global warming is a sham, right?
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
* and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech”, 1961
Why, OH WHY??, don’t any of the AGW folks take a moment to look into the sky and see that great big ball of FIRE up there and admit the obvious, at least to my teeny tiny brain: IT’S THE SUN and if you think it’s CO2, stop exhaling.
When the next ice age does come we will have to cut down all the trees and drive our cars like mad, to save the planet.
Will some please tell these global warming frauds, that the best thing for plant and animal life is warmer temperatures. Who was the idiot that decided todays temperature is the best temperature for the planet? I mean is just stupid on its face. Thanks for nothing NOAA
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a six-figure job like the malicious phonies at NOAA, who get paid to make up stories to suit their mindless preference? Where no one in authority ever questions your competence or integrity? And where the more you lie, the more money gets dumped in your lap?
The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) crowd have a huge investment, time, money and personal reputations, in developing and “proving” this theory. To have it shredded on the basis of alleged data manipulation, undeniable truths and long ignored, alternate views of qualified scientific peers, experts in related fields, is a disaster likely to seriously tarnish their professional reputations and hinder their ability to attract lucrative funding for future scientific endeavors, the lifeblood of their existence. This quest to demonize industrial activity throughout the world and especially here in the United States has taken on the evangelical characteristics of a religion, a zealotry adopted by adherents who disguise their significant financial interests in so called “Green Technology” by proclaiming their altruistic intentions to “save the planet from impending doom.” I doubt this farce will end anytime soon.
In spite of all evidence against it, the theory of AGW so wonderfully fits ALL of the goals of its proponents that they won’t let it go easily.
Does anybody know what the satellite data is saying? Anyone have any links to a site that processes that data into something readable? A nice graph maybe?
taqiyyah, everywhere I look this week.
Yeah!….where’s the proof?
I don’t know if the AGW crowd knows anything about global warming, but I do know that they know the first rule of gov’t funded research: No problem, no funding.
This knowledge is so fundamental that it make one wonder if the statements coming from NOAA are based on politics rather than science.
Ya think ?
What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who’ll produce the “right” results.
The warming “scientific” community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other’s papers — and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
As you say, man-made in the most literal sense, Mom Nature not necessarily in the game.
Global Warming is a hoax to get people to pay more taxes.
Mr. Horn,
Regarding your quote….
“So far 2010 has been warm, but the developing La Nina should have a significant chilling effect on the remaining months. Don’t bet the ranch, or any other property, on 2010 being the hottest year ever.”
-It may be that 2010 will not shape up to be the “hottest year ever”, but what you fail to inform your readers of is that it will continue the upward trend of warming temperatures consistent with the fact that AGW is in fact taking place right now. Even McShane and Wyner’s said:
“our model gives a 80% chance that [the last decade] was the warmest in the past thousand years”…..
Are these claims of the hottest decade from NOAA still based on their defective NOAA-16, 17 & 18 satellite data, showing amongst other things North Lake Michigan Surface temperatures reaching 604F? I hope NOAA’s clients sue NOAA’s ass off for this corrupt data they continue to peddle.