«

»

It was a mistake! – just like the Learner IRS emails being eaten by her dog.. (UPDATED)

Make what you want of this – I know exactly what it means to me, but then again, I am not a cultists blinded by faith in AGW, and what it should mean to people that respect the scientific process – but if you suspect something is rotten in Denmark, you are on the right track.

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”

“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.

“Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”

Maybe the people that value science over the political agenda are taking over the reins of power, or maybe the cultists are just doing damage control so they can come out and tell us that they have never made up shit, whole cloth, to frighten people into agreeing with the collectivist cultist’s agenda. Who the fuck knows anymore with these clowns? Maybe they can use the same exuse hte IRS used and blame it on technical difficulties or the dog. Don’t expect anyone in the LSM to point this out for you BTW.

This myth can’t die a quick enough death for me so real scientific research can take place and we can find out what our options really are. And no, the option should never, ever, be an increase in government power, at the expense of our freedoms, coupled with more of our hard earned money being stolen from us by the nanny staters. No matter the crisis. I would rather humanity perish any other way than that way.

>UPDATE: The fact is that Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling according to the Forbes article:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor citing issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely cited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.

First, global warming is not so dramatic and uniform and alarmists claim. For example, prominent alarmist James Hansen claimed in 2010, “Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup … effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales.” The word monotonic means, according to Merriam-Webster Online, “having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase.” Well, either temperatures are decreasing by 0.4 degrees Celsius every decade or they are not monotonic.

Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also.

The facts don’t bear out. The predictions by the cultist’s models are stumped,over and over, and the desperate cultists are resorting to other scare tactics – like telling us that gingers will go extinct – to keep pushing the agenda. If these people cared about science, they would be going back to the drawing board. Instead they are threatening to do what they want by fiat, despite the damage and the fact that they are full of shit. They are reluctant to see this vehicle that has given them so much opportunity to steal from the productive and to grow their power on the masses go down in the flames it needs to.

20 comments

No ping yet

  1. hist_ed says:

    Alex, I really think that the revision has very little meaning if one take a moment to think. Before this, 2012 was the hottest year on record by two tenths of a degree. So it was a teensy tiny bit hotter than 1936. That really doesn’t sound like crazy runaway warming. Hey pick 1950 and it looks absolutely crazy hot. Pick a couple of decades earlier and its is less than the heat one of my farts brings to a room after a chili dog dinner.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Xetrov says:

    It matters very little in the science of real heating the earth may be having, but people won’t take that moment to think. Being able to scream from the rooftops (front pages, movies, propaganda, etc.), “2012 had the hottest month EVER!!!” can mean quite a bit to the perception of global warming and the public at large.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Hal_10000 says:

    We’ve been through this before. Temperatures in the 1930′s — IN THE UNITED STATES — were unusually hot because we had this thing called the Dust Bowl. Producing an average temperature for the United States is a bit difficult since we don’t have weather stations planted every 20 feet, weather stations get moved, changed, taken out of service, added into service. This can result in small changes to the estimate of average temperature depending on how you do the analysis. This is especially true when you’re talking about preliminary data (e.g. the July data the NOAA published immediately in 2012). These changes only show up when you’re comparing things on a tenth of a degree level. The overall trend remains the same.

    Notice that Watts did not publish error bars, which might show that the two temperature are statistically the same. Funny that. Nor did he actually follow with NOAA to see what the story was probably because he would get an answer that didn’t fit the conspiracy angel.

    The important point is that we are at temperatures we have not seen since the Dust Bowl at a time when we are not having a dust bowl. Meanwhile, back in reality, *global* temperature continue to march upward. Meanwhile, back in reality, we had the hottest May on record and the second hottest April on record.

    Honestly, Alex, I think you’ve proven the point. If small adjustment to temperature averaging that have no effect on long-term global trends are your smoking gun for global warming being a myth, you’re really are grasping at straws.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  4. Dave D says:

    The Force is STRONG with this Hal, Alex…….

    Why the HECK did they remove a previous statement that was put up as fact and proof of AGW and not issue a change notice, retraction or similar when the error was found? An honest scientist would do that.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Hal_10000 says:

    Aha. See … it took me about a minute of poking around the NOAA website to discover than in 2013, they changed their methodology for computing average temperatures.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php

    So Watts is completely full of shit, as usual. NOAA changed their methods in 2013 to incorporate MORE stations, more data and do a better job of it. They highlight this on their website and provide a tool to check the differences between the two data sets. Only in Watts’ delusional world is incorporating more data and improving your analysis while documenting everything you’ve done a conspiracy.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  6. Hal_10000 says:

    Dave, they did not remove the previous statement. It is still there in the July 2012 report because it is still true if you use the old data sets. In the 2013 report, they note the changes in methodology and the incorporation of new data.

    This is a catch-22 for you guys. If they leave the statement in the July 2012 report up, they’re leaving false data out. If they remove it, they’re covering up. NOAA is obligated to put out monthly reports on the best data they have at that time.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  7. Hal_10000 says:

    So it was a teensy tiny bit hotter than 1936. That really doesn’t sound like crazy runaway warming

    It does when you consider that in 1936, much of the US midwest was a desert.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  8. Mook says:

    The fact that they have to keep adjusting past temperatures makes clear that they don’t really know what the temperature was. This uncertainty is further underscored by NOAA’s complete lack of explanation as to how and why they changed their data. They just put the revised data out there.. no explanation needed. Furthermore, NOAA relies on “estimated” temperatures at weather stations which have been long ago closed. How is that justified?

    We’re supposed to make huge costly sacrifices over relatively miniscule temperature changes, and those changes can’t be reliably estimated in order to come up with a trend… and even over say, a 150 year period, who says even THAT time period constitutes a “trend” when it comes to mother nature who may have a larger countertrend in effect which won’t finish playing out for thousands of years?

    “But we’ll all DIE soon if we don’t slash our carbon footprint RIGHT NOW!”

    Another question: How did “dust bowl” high temperatures occur at a time when man-made greenhouse gas emissions were at a tiny fraction of what they are today? Aren’t erratic weather events like “Dust bowl” temperature and El Nino supposed to be caused by greenhouse gases?

    Don’t you love how Hal dismisses these legit questions with “we’ve been over this before”?.. as if he’s already explained it away.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Mook says:

    It does when you consider that in 1936, much of the US midwest was a desert.

    With all that desert back then, not much man-made greenhouse gases being emitted, right? Because we’re told that CO2, which is used by plants for photosynthesis, is the definitive culprit of rising earth temperature, and we’re also told that “scientists” can quantify CO2′s contribution to warming. Even though their models have a disastrous record in forecasting temperatures.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  10. AlexInCT says:

    Alex, I really think that the revision has very little meaning if one take a moment to think. Before this, 2012 was the hottest year on record by two tenths of a degree. So it was a teensy tiny bit hotter than 1936

    According to the warmists it was hell on earth and proof positive that we were all going to fry while swimming around in waterworld. So, fraction or not, they were the ones making big hay about the numbers Ed.

    Aha. See … it took me about a minute of poking around the NOAA website to discover than in 2013, they changed their methodology for computing average temperatures.

    Must be the same people that helped the Obama admin change the methodology that computes unemployment, inflation, and economic growth…

    And where is the public correction? What about previous temperatures? Did they change how they calculate those too? I know that the temperatures they get today by placing measurement devices right on hot pavement or next to air conditioning heat exahusts, mean shit anyway. Know what I am saying?

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Hal_10000 says:

    The fact that they have to keep adjusting past temperatures makes clear that they don’t really know what the temperature was.

    They do know what it was. The temperature measurements exist. The question is how you create an “average” temperature for the US. How would you create it? What stations to do you include? How do you account for the growth of cities? Do you mean averages over the entire country or at one particular point? When you incorporate more data, that average can change on a small level (a few tenths at most). You can compare that to the 2 degree rise we’ve seen. Moreover, both the old data set and the new one show the same temperature rise. So NOAA is comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges as Watt’s does all the time.

    This uncertainty is further underscored by NOAA’s complete lack of explanation as to how and why they changed their data. They just put the revised data out there.. no explanation needed. Furthermore, NOAA relies on “estimated” temperatures at weather stations which have been long ago closed. How is that justified?

    Wrong. Check the link. They explain it.

    We’re supposed to make huge costly sacrifices over relatively miniscule temperature changes, and those changes can’t be reliably estimated in order to come up with a trend… and even over say, a 150 year period, who says even THAT time period constitutes a “trend” when it comes to mother nature who may have a larger countertrend in effect which won’t finish playing out for thousands of years?

    We don’t necessarily have to make huge sacrifices. But these are hardly miniscule changes.

    http://berkeleyearth.org/land-and-ocean-data

    Another question: How did “dust bowl” high temperatures occur at a time when man-made greenhouse gas emissions were at a tiny fraction of what they are today? Aren’t erratic weather events like “Dust bowl” temperature and El Nino supposed to be caused by greenhouse gases?

    1) The dust bowl was confined to the US. World temperature did not spike at that time. When you narrow down your sample, you get more prone to small variations.

    2) The dust bowl was a response to horrific land management that turned large parts of the country into effectively a desert. The midwest is not a desert right now. The only effect that matches the temperature trends is global warming.

    Don’t you love how Hal dismisses these legit questions with “we’ve been over this before”?.. as if he’s already explained it away.

    Because I have. Because I do. Because we go over these same fucking points over and over and over and over and over and over again. How many times do I have to debunk the “global cooling” crap before it stops being brought up? How many times do I have to point out all the investigations that found no wrong-doing in Climategate? How many times do I have to point out that the arctic sea ice did not recover?

    Yes, we have been through this before. This exact same thing. One of the things that pushed me away from the skeptic side was 15 years ago. A fix of a Y2k bug changed some temperature estimates and Watts and his cronies went nuts because 1998 went from being slightly warmer than 1936 to slightly cooler. Global warming is a fraud! they cried. And I looked into it. And I found that the temperature adjustment was a few hundredth of a degree — 1936 and 1998 were very close in temperature. And I found that this was only for the US — global temperatures in 1998 were way hotter than 1936. And I found that the overall net effect on global warming projections could be measured in thousandths of a degree.

    That was when I realize that this pseudo-skepticism is largely bullshit. It’s built heavily on precisely such garbage as this: taking two numbers in a vacuum and proclaiming you’ve found something. Not bothering to do any research. Not bothering to ask the people who created the data about it. Not bothering to apply any real skepticism. Not bothering to consider the other 50,000 data points that support the theory of global warming. No, just take that small piece of information *from two different data sets* and proclaim that the work of thousands of scientists and the weight of thousands of pieces of information is part of a huge global conspiracy.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  12. Hal_10000 says:

    And where is the public correction? What about previous temperatures? Did they change how they calculate those too? I know that the temperatures they get today by placing measurement devices right on hot pavement or next to air conditioning heat exahusts, mean shit anyway. Know what I am saying?

    The public note on the change in methods is right on the NOAA website. It took me a minute to find it. And BOTH data sets are available. And they take into account the location of temperature stations near heat sources. Watts has been on about that for 20 years.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  13. Mook says:

    Hal, I stand corrected on my accusation that NOAA didn’t explain their change in methodology. The link does go into some detail. But it also confirms that there is much subjectivity in how to compute “average” temperatures. I might also add that NOAA was using estimated temperature at a number of site. If there’s so much subjectivity, then the conclusions involving average temperatures cannot be “settled science”.

    “And I found that the overall net effect on global warming projections could be measured in thousandths of a degree.”

    How did such laser-precise “thousandths of a degree” projections wrongly predict global temperatures in the climate models?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  14. hist_ed says:

    HAL do you think maybe you are confusing cause and effect there?

    “unusually hot because we had this thing called the Dust Bowl.”
    “It does when you consider that in 1936, much of the US midwest was a desert”

    Ummm do you think maybe, just maybe, we had the Dust Bowl because it was hot?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  15. Dave D says:

    Hal: Retracting data in the corner of a website deos NOTHING to retract the 10 layers of global warming religious zealots who reposted this as fact in support of their sect. This is why scientists need to be careful before they publish things as fact. Cold fusion, anyone?

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  16. AlexInCT says:

    Hal: Retracting data in the corner of a website deos NOTHING to retract the 10 layers of global warming religious zealots who reposted this as fact in support of their sect.

    You don’t think tactic is used on purpose? This sort of shit is SOP on the left. They make bold claims and level horrid accusations, always on the front page and in bold letters, against their enemies/opponents, to sell you whatever snake oil they are peddling, then when the real facts come out and they are found to be in the wrong, if they retract or correct, it is buried so deep that nobody that doesn’t put serious effort into following these things, can see it. That allows them to pretend they actually care about accuracy while allowing the low information voter to keep believing the bullshit they originally peddled.

    That sort of double take is basically what this retraction amounts to. We have been told countless times by the AGW snake oil peddlers that 2012 was the hottest year on record, which proves their claims of warming, and we have even had people here use it to make that very argument. Now that’s been retracted, because they arbitrarily changed the way they calculate stuff of all things, but you wouldn’t know about this enormous event happening unless you read the sites that actually point out that AGW makes a mockery of science and a scientific process. But it’s no big deal at all.

    Poppycock.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  17. Hal_10000 says:

    How did such laser-precise “thousandths of a degree” projections wrongly predict global temperatures in the climate models?

    I don’t trust the climate models and further than I could throw them. You don’t need models. You can see the rise over the last century.

    Ummm do you think maybe, just maybe, we had the Dust Bowl because it was hot?

    No. The Dust Bowl was caused by horrific land management policies that basically eliminated anything that could resist drought. The entire surface of the American midwest basically blew away. The world as a whole did not experience any heat wave. Only the US.

    Hal: Retracting data in the corner of a website deos NOTHING to retract the 10 layers of global warming religious zealots who reposted this as fact in support of their sect. This is why scientists need to be careful before they publish things as fact. Cold fusion, anyone?

    No data was retracted. The data is still there in the form of temperature measurements. The *analysis* was revised based on new data. If I measure the size of the Galaxy to be slightly different based on new data, I don’t retract every paper I have written. Their analysis was correct based on the data they had at the time. It’s still correct if you use the data they had at the time. And 2012 was only 2 years ago.

    Look, fundamentally nothing has changed. The temperatures have still gone upward precipitously over the last century. July 2012 was now the second warmest July in the US by a small amount instead of the warmest by a small amount. The temperature analysis varied by less than the uncertainty. You’re acting like the entire edifice of tens of thousands of temperature measurements has been revised. All that’s changed is an analysis. It’s no different than revising the amount of sea level rise or ice melting based on new data.

    Let me make a sports analogy: in 1910, Ty Cobb won the batting title in the American League by one point over Nap Lajoie. 70 years later, Pete Palmer discovered an error in the records and that Nap Lajoie actually won by two points. By your logic, we should therefore conclude that Ty Cobb sucked and we can’t possibly know what his batting average was and OMG all the baseball records in history are a fraud!

    That sort of double take is basically what this retraction amounts to. We have been told countless times by the AGW snake oil peddlers that 2012 was the hottest year on record, which proves their claims of warming, and we have even had people here use it to make that very argument. Now that’s been retracted, because they arbitrarily changed the way they calculate stuff of all things, but you wouldn’t know about this enormous event happening unless you read the sites that actually point out that AGW makes a mockery of science and a scientific process. But it’s no big deal at all.

    Try paying attention, Alex. No on ever claimed 2012 was the hottest year on record. It’s #10. 2010 was the hottest. This revision means that July 2012 was the second hottest July in American history instead of the 1st hottest. 2010 is till the hottest year on record globally and 2012 is still in the top ten. And 2012 was still, on a global scale over two degrees warmer than 1936. Even with a Dust Bowl.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  18. Dave D says:

    So, let me get this straight:

    The warmest July ever by a thousandth of a degree or so PROVES AGW to many on the watermelon left. You KNOW that’s how it’s stated and digested by these people. They take EVERY bad storm as proof of the necessity of this collectivist scheme (God, I’m sounding like Alex here!). Denying this makes you sound naive.

    The REVISED analysis of the published data (weasel words for sure) on a different part of a page or another page shows that that July was actually second warmest on record by a few thosandth of a degree to a date almost 80 years ago.

    The likely juxtaposition by true believers of the claims made by the former and the effects on those claims resulting from the latter is miniscule and you know that too. They simply won’t look for those things because they don’t support the true faith. “Hottest/Wettest/Most disasterous of all time” scores triple points with the collectivist left trying to do good.

    You know, I would have NO problem with AGW theories and investigation if they didn’t talk about a TAX or a PLAN before even proving we have a problem and that said TAX or PLAN will even do anything about the problem. That is what frosts this free market, anti collectivist the most. For example, why aren’t we talking about planting vast expanses of trees and replacing lost jungle to use up the extra CO2? No money in that, it only affects poor brown people and doesn’t allow them to control our lives like they do.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  19. hist_ed says:

    HAL how exactly did the Dust Bowl make things hotter?

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  20. Hal_10000 says:

    The midwest was already in a bad way because of drought and poor land management. The removal of grass in favor of cropland had weakened the grounds ability to retain moisture. When the heat wave hit, this made things far worse and far hotter because instead of having the cooling effect of top soil and grass, you had the heat-reflecting effect of bare soil. The midwest basically became a desert, amplifying the effect of a bad heat wave.

    We couldn’t get anything like that right now because we’ve gotten better at land management and mitigate the effects of heat waves better. This is one of the reasons I think doom and gloom scenarios are far-fetched. We are much better at adapting to these things than we were in the past.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      

Comments have been disabled.