NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah possibly so but we have been burning a ton of fossil fuel since the first coal plant fired up. I suppose we could have had an effect on global weather. But when we get schemer's like Al Gore and political agendas in the mix who knows what to believe anymore?

Weather seems the same to me. I would really like to see some facts on this and not just money grubbing.

I thought that also. It turns out that, according to the Anti AGW literature, that

1)the CO2 numbers are agreed all around, pro and con AGW. 400 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere today, and rising.

2) the temperature has gone up, but way less than predicted by the AGW from increased CO2. The Taxers predicted something like 10 degrees Celsius and the actual change has been about one degree.

3) So CO2 is not causing global warming, or if it is, the effect is greatly reduced from AGW predictions.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I think what may have happened is they adjusted city temps down for 1936 to fall in line with the relocated stations away from cities then latter realised they overestimated.

Why the article didn't even mention that as a possibility seems a bit one sided. They did get their info from watts who quite frankly is known to fudge quite a bit.

Sorry for seeming obtuse but please explain this further in layman terms. Also more about "watts" for those of us who need extra help (specifically me but maybe others.) Are cities hotter than rural areas? Real question.

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: Snarl

Politics. And not the simple kind, either. NOAA's gonna get their funding cut for being politically correct.

I think you mean politically incorrect. It's always politically incorrect to do anything that goes against TPTB agenda (in this case carbon taxes.) How dare NOAA do or say anything against the climate chaos bunch. Don't we all know Obama has consistently mocked anyone who speaks against climate change.

Still waiting for real facts here................chirp.. crickets.....

No ... I was taking the long view.

I think we both know 0bama's not cutting any government programs. A Republican successor very well might, and I'm sure they're going to look at all the agencies who supported Barry's various agendas to the detriment of conservative bastions (like the energy sector).

We can see all the threatened (D)s managing their voting records so they don't get buried in the pending mid-terms. What I'm seeing are actual government agencies gearing up to do the same damn thing. This is unprecedented in my mind (though it's very possible I wasn't paying attention before).

From that light, this may be one of the more insightful scandal threads in a great while.

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: Grimpachi

I think what may have happened is they adjusted city temps down for 1936 to fall in line with the relocated stations away from cities then latter realised they overestimated.

Why the article didn't even mention that as a possibility seems a bit one sided. They did get their info from watts who quite frankly is known to fudge quite a bit.

Sorry for seeming obtuse but please explain this further in layman terms. Also more about "watts" for those of us who need extra help (specifically me but maybe others.) Are cities hotter than rural areas? Real question.

Well see that is what makes me raise my eyebrow a bit at the 1936 change.

How would they know that the data from that period needed to be "adjusted"?

Is it because the same recording stations in certain cities have not changed since then who's temp data must be adjusted? (kind of have a hard time believing that, things in cities change, a lot, in just a few years).

Was it because they know that certain stations were located on top of buildings with hot roof tops, and have a record of that?

Data just becoming digitized now? The 2nd decade of the 21st century? I would have though considering how long global warming has been being studied that this data would have been collected and digitized well before now.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything like that. I'm simply concerned (and a bit confused), why they felt that 1936 needed to be changed. Was it the only year? What about the years after that?

See, it's like if someone decided to change the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor from 7:48 AM to 7:55 AM. I would really hope they had a heck of a good reason to make such a change, and that is all I'm asking:

Why?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Look back at any AGW thread which I participated in for examples. It isn't just one thread..no sir. Usually it ends with Phage using data or a graph that sides with my argument, and then he just disappears from the face of the earth.

So strange it is...makes me a sad panda.

a reply to: Bassago

I am no expert but I would certainly think cities are hotter than urban areas. Here is a thermal image of a city.

If you are not familiar with thermals the reds, oranges, and yellows are much warmer than the blues.

As far as watts goes I have seen on several occasions where they publish something then if you wait a few days there will be several other articles on what he wrote pointing out where he cherry-picked data, quote mined or actually fudged numbers.

I am sure if you give it a day or two you there will be an article explaining something he did mischaracterize in this one. Though it may not happen with this article. Let me just say I don't really trust that site for info. I see in these threads where they come up and are debated to where they hardly ever stand up to scrutiny. Just my opinion.

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: Grimpachi

I think what may have happened is they adjusted city temps down for 1936 to fall in line with the relocated stations away from cities then latter realised they overestimated.

Why the article didn't even mention that as a possibility seems a bit one sided. They did get their info from watts who quite frankly is known to fudge quite a bit.

Sorry for seeming obtuse but please explain this further in layman terms. Also more about "watts" for those of us who need extra help (specifically me but maybe others.) Are cities hotter than rural areas? Real question.

The Anthropomorphic (human caused) Global Warming Taxers were averaging temperatures across 200 years. The reason was to get a baseline "normal" temperature of the globe from before the alleged Human Caused Global Warming. The average temperature could be compared to the recent temperature and the change would show the amount of warming.

Either the rules of averaging were biased or temperatures from the "little Ice Age" 1400 - 1900 AD were included as "normal" temperatures, or both.

When the actual recorded temperatures were entered into the temperature graph, the past became relatively hotter and the overall temperature increase of the last 200 years was reduced.

Cities are hotter than countryside. Cities have more cars, heaters and air conditioners, and electrical appliances, per square mile than countryside (fewer particulates in city air though). That wouldn't matter for the global warming measurement. The global warming measurement is a before and after at a location, not a comparison of hot places to cold places. Also, the heat from cities goes straight up by convection, where as the purpose of the temperature data was to show an even warming throughout the entire atmosphere of the Earth, caused by CO2.

When the Soviet Union collapsed their arctic weather stations went off line. A whole lot of cold temperatures got left out of the data in the 1990's.

In general, very many of the data sources changed location or the time of day the measurement was taken.
The data set is not real, experimentally uniform, directly observed data.

Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple
elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.

Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The temperatures were not measured at the same time of day. "Over time, the U.S. network went from recording max/min temperatures at different points of the day, to doing it at midnight," Schmidt said.

In fact, volunteers staffed many of the stations. Before 1940, most followed Weather Service guidelines and recorded the temperature at
sundown. Through the second half of the century, there was a gradual shift to recording morning temperatures. This change produced the
appearance of a cooling trend when none existed.

www.politifact.com...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Bassago
The good news is it didn't bother me. I'm finally climatized to the warmer weather and ready for the summer.

Which means you use more energy to cool off (A/C)....which means you contribute to even more warming. Congrats : )

a reply to: Semicollegiate

OK I'll admit I don't understand most of what you said. Cities are hotter, OK got that part. Cities in comparison to the entire surface of the earth are very small so what are you saying, they have little impact or a lot?

Seems to me global warming can't be taken at just a single location. Either the entire planet it warming (due to CO2 or whatever) or this whole thing is bogus. I'm still on the side of bogus as the money schemer's are frantically trying to convinced everyone the sea levels will rise and we'll all die unless we allow ourselves to be taxed via carbon credits.

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: Semicollegiate

OK I'll admit I don't understand most of what you said. Cities are hotter, OK got that part. Cities in comparison to the entire surface of the earth are very small so what are you saying, they have little impact or a lot?

Seems to me global warming can't be taken at just a single location. Either the entire planet it warming (due to CO2 or whatever) or this whole thing is bogus. I'm still on the side of bogus as the money schemer's are frantically trying to convinced everyone the sea levels will rise and we'll all die unless we allow ourselves to be taxed via carbon credits.

The taxers claim that the CO2 given off by burning fossil fuels is the whole reason that the global temperature is rising.
And that the temperature is rising alarmingly and devastatingly fast.

Allegedly, CO2 is able to do that because the "greenhouse effect". The GHE is caused by CO2 absorbing infrared light ( infra red light is heat -- all heat that we feel as humans is infra red light) radiated by the Earth.

Side bar here about losing heat. Light is energy and heat is energy, light can be thought of as heat. When a thing glows, the light that leaves it is heat energy. Glowing, or in other words emitting or radiating light, removes energy which is also heat, from the glowing thing. Radiating light causes cooling. In terms of heat this is called radiation (of heat).

Everything has a temperature. The type of heat/light/energy given off by an object is determined by its temperature. The Earth and everything on it is at room temperature more or less. (273 degrees C above absolute zero)
At this temperature any and every object glows mostly in the infra red.

If the Earth had no atmosphere the infra red would shine on out into space and the Earth would cool faster than the desert at night. The atmosphere, however, absorbs various wavelengths of light and CO2 absorbs some of the infra red specifically.

The green house theory is that the CO2 traps heat that would normally leave the Earth into space and thereby causes global warming of the atmosphere. There is the possibility of a feed back of heat in this scenario. The co2 traps heat and warms the atmosphere while the continuing radiation from the Earth adds on to the heat already in the CO2 and the atmosphere gets even hotter and so on.

It turns out that in the sum of all atmospheric events the amount of warming caused by this mechanism is at least 4 times less than projected by the AGW taxers, which negates the feedback effect. And there is a diminishing return from higher levels of CO2. It takes a number of times the current concentration of CO2 to get an increase in the CO2 effect.

So the level of CO2 is higher than it was in 1800, for whatever reason, but the greenhouse effect is very small, and might not be there at all. Something else might be causing all of the one degree of warming.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Which means you use more energy to cool off (A/C)....which means you contribute to even more warming. Congrats

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The only AC i have is the evaporation of sweat.

a reply to: Bassago

Plenty of smoke and if people unambiguously looked they could see who the fire starters/arsonist are. Good news is more and more articles and scientist are fighting back with glaring examples of bad or falsified science.

Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".

The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.

When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie fabricated by computer models - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.

This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.

As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:

In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.

However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists' fashionable "global warming" narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up - where before they looked either flat or declining.

www.breitbart.com...

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice versa. But the shift could be greater than simple
elevation. Stations were moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said, will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.

wow...I never knew we were that dumb. I will correct my attitude accordingly.

So our temperature count and averages depend on the measuring station's location and number of such stations ?

wow again...so whatever the "real" temps may be...our results could be skewed...depending on the mentioned factors ??

Nothing further your honor. I'm done with this witness.

What a joke. We are in fact measuring ourselves...not the planet's temperature.

a reply to: Bassago

OK I'll admit I don't understand most of what you said. Cities are hotter, OK got that part. Cities in comparison to the entire surface of the earth are very small so what are you saying, they have little impact or a lot?

Seems to me global warming can't be taken at just a single location. Either the entire planet it warming (due to CO2 or whatever) or this whole thing is bogus.

You are right if there is evidence for AGW that evidence can't be coming from a single spot in the world for temps.

The question of if cities have a lot, little, or no impact on the overall isn't even an issue. I think it was in the 80s that temp sensing stations were dismantled and moved to areas that were more rural. They would then need to figure out what the difference would be due to the surroundings.

It might be 88 degrees in the city but on the same day the temp may only rise to 86.5 outside of the city so for the previous years when readings were taken in the city they would adjust those readings down 1.5 degrees.

As Semicollegiate also pointed out another problem which may be even harder to adjust for is the time of day readings were recorded. For a long time readings were recorded in the late afternoon for the day years later that was changed so they were taken in the morning ideally readings would have been taken at the same time each day every year without change but because they weren't adjustments have to be made. The way they can model those and make adjustments I have no idea.


For example say you wanted to get the average temp for the week on your property. For two days you set the thermometer out on the driveway at 8 am then for 3 more days you set the thermometer in the grass under a shade tree and took the temp at 6 pm and for the last 2 days you took the temp at 1 pm.

It would be real hard to get an average for that due to the locations and times you recorded they temp. You would need to take another day record the temp at 8am, 1pm and 6pm on the driveway and then do the same in the grass then you would need to add subtract the values that made a difference.

That is sort of the same thing that they are doing except over a much longer time frame with a lot more data.