Sciencescience

Sat Nov 24, 2018, 08:51 PM

Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

"The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average."

Isn't this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?

In this case, it didn't warrant any news coverage.
---

We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years.


Hiding The Evidence

There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?

Crickets.


https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/

15 replies, 353 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling (Original post)
Iron Condor Nov 2018 OP
bruiserboy Nov 2018 #1
Iron Condor Nov 2018 #2
bruiserboy Nov 2018 #4
Paradigm Nov 2018 #3
fszwfnj Nov 2018 #5
batcat Nov 2018 #6
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #7
Meowmenow Nov 2018 #8
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #9
oflguy Nov 2018 #11
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #12
oflguy Nov 2018 #13
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #14
oflguy Nov 2018 #15
oflguy Nov 2018 #10

Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2018, 09:11 PM

1. Say it ain't so Condor

Lefty won't be able to collect any money in the form of taxes. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bruiserboy (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 24, 2018, 09:18 PM

2. Yup... :)

And lefty will deny, deny, deny... LOL


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 24, 2018, 09:21 PM

4. Garly gee you and Nasa

Just ruined lefties plans,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2018, 09:19 PM

3. In case you havent heard.

The doomer religion bible, chapter 1, verse 1, clearly states global warming causes global cooling.
As penance for your non belief in their religion, you now must tithe a nice check to the doomer religion collection plate.
All hail AlGore. May his private jet circle the global warming clouds above his mega mansion for all times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2018, 09:32 PM

5. Sorry, this is not possible. Its settled science.

We are repeatedly told.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fszwfnj (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2018, 09:37 PM

6. When you mix politics with science you end up with junk science. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2018, 10:04 PM

7. Here's the data.

In case, you know, someone might want to check the honesty of their reporting.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 24, 2018, 10:49 PM

8. Ha!

 

Was just looking for it.

Because a fluctuation proves it is all a hoax, right?

Here is what I was looking at - https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 09:27 AM

9. Sometimes you have to go back

Through a few websites before you actually find the data. Those sites never link straight to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 02:24 PM

11. James Hansen is a kook leftist activist

I trust a liberal to tell me the earth is warming like I trust a puppy dog to watch my food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 02:29 PM

12. Watt?

That can't be the best analogy you have.
I've seen you use it like 50 times now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #12)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 04:14 PM

13. I trust a liberal to tell me if the earth is warming

Like I trust a puppy dog to watch my food

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 04:17 PM

14. Continue on with your closed mind then.

and broadbrushing everyone you don't agree with politically.
Everyone can see that when discussion of science gets involved that you have no idea about any of it.
Good for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 04:20 PM

15. Silly, the global warming agenda is not about science

It is about wealth redistribution and socialism, which is why Lefty pushes the agenda so reverently

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iron Condor (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2018, 09:51 AM

10. Eventually, we started catching them in their lies

Scientists lie about data
http://undebunked.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/emails-confirm-white-house-scientists-lied-about-global-warming/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Climategate
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warminghttp://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html

Data from hundreds of weather stations located around the U.S. appear to show the planet is getting warmer, but some critics say it's the government's books that are getting cooked -- thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data. The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.

"The question remains as to why they continue to use a polluted mix of well-sited and poorly-sited stations," Watts told FoxNews.com.

Watts has for years searched for weather stations that have flaws. And he points to a still-open station at Yosemite park as an example of one with “heat sinks” – objects that store heat, and then release it at night. Heat sinks can cause stations located in or near them to give off useless data -- generally in the form of inflated temperatures not representative of the broader area.
“The heat sinks are a road, a building, and stacked metal pipe and beams surrounding the station,” he said.


After the heat sinks were added at Yosemite, temperature readings show a curious trend: minimum nighttime temperatures increased more than daytime temperatures. Watts says that's because the concrete structures store heat that is released at night, and that such a trend backs up the idea that the "heat sinks" are having an effect.

But the government agency that compiles the temperature data says that such concerns are unfounded because of statistical methods used to adjust the data.

"There is no doubt that NOAA's temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable," NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen told FoxNews.com. "To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects."

Smullen added that the recent station closures, which were made after "an extensive six-month review by all National Weather Service forecast offices," make the system even better.

He said the agency considered several factors in shuttering stations, including whether their data was redundant, whether urban growth had rendered data invalid and if sites were transmitting reliable data. But Watts says that closures are something of a vindication of a years-long project to identify stations with problems.

Some of the first official notice of Watts’ findings were in the leaked “Climate-gate” emails from 2009, in which the director of the National Climatic Data Center at the NOAA appeared to take Watts’ findings seriously.
“He has a website of 40 of the USHCN stations showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases. We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out,” Thomas Karl, the director, wrote in an internal email.

Then the Government Accountability Office -- the government agency which issues reports evaluating other agencies -- looked into the issue of inappropriately-sited stations, interviewing Watts twice.

In an August 2011 report titled “NOAA Can Improve Management of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network” the GAO concluded that “NOAA has not developed an agencywide policy… whether stations that do not adhere to siting standards should remain open… or should be moved or closed.”

NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said that the NOAA’s recent review and closure of stations over the last two years is far more extensive than the investigation Watts conducted.
“While some of the 600 sites we targeted for closure may overlap with some sites Mr. Watts has questioned, we understand that his study looked only at siting criteria at a 1,200-site subset of our overall network, while we reviewed the entire network, and siting criteria was just one factor we considered.”
So how serious is the problem of poorly-sited stations for the overall historical climate record? And does it have implications about the extent of manmade global warming?

Watts says it does, and that if one looks only at pristine stations, they show a temperature increase of 1.1° Fahrenheit over the years 1979 to 2008. That is noticeably lower than the government estimate of 1.7° Fahrenheit, which includes readings from all stations, including those with potential problems, which it tries to adjust for statistically.

But many scientists concerned about global warming say that the statistical adjustments work, and they point out that many other measurements of temperature match closely with NOAA’s historical data.
“Watts' analysis is an outlier… Analyses by several groups using global land temps, ocean temps, and satellite-inferred temps (no thermometers there!) show very similar warming rates ,” Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at SUNY Suffolk, said.

Watts says he doesn’t dispute the satellite data.
“I don’t dispute the satellite measurements, but they are measuring temperature of the atmosphere above the Earth, and that includes all cities and populated areas as well as rural open space… My premise is this: if you want to see the effect of CO2 on warming, you need to look in areas that have not been affected by urbanization to find the true signal.”

In other words, Watts says the data show that global warming is due relatively more to increased urbanization than to greenhouse gases. Such a finding would be relevant for whether government should further restrict greenhouse gasses.
“Questions should then be asked about… decisions all the way up the food chain,” Watts said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience