Americas Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend

NOAA latest claim responded to previously. Problem is, those that believe the political consensus never read anything that pertains to actual science which includes a lot more than what they wish to believe but only those things that support their bias and resort to name calling and attacking the messenger.

 

Right now only the US with the Climate Reference Network. The rest is by a sparse combination of various records that have to be adjusted with models since they all disagree with each other.

 

I was hoping Grizz would respond, since he was so quick to point out how important the big picture is.

Of course, I already realize that our "big picture" is currently painted by throwing a handful of dump trucks of paint at a canvas the size of the solar system.

Climate conclusions are limited by the resolution of our real time data, which currently, is garbage.

 

That has been pointed out by scientists but those that point it out get called deniers because they are not supporting the political consensus so only the scientists that no longer rely on government funding speak out.

 

Right, and as an addendum to "only the U.S." Even the percentage of the U.S. with accurate surface temp records is pretty low. We're monitoring a bit over 1,200 stations for 3.8 million square miles. Clearly we have a few "gaps."

 

Also, land covers only 29% of the earth's surface and most long term surface records come from land based readings. Older ocean records are spotty and full of errors since they were taken with different methods. The biggest driver of climate variability comes from the Oceans and natural variability study is hardly supported with government funding.

 

`
I usually get a hoot out of reading what those LEAST qualified have to say about a topic as complex as "climate change." Ok, some guy at the daily caller gets a hold of one statistical measure and on that alone, spins a story that "climate change is bogus." Stupid attracts stupid.

NOAA conducts ongoing monitoring of the earth and provides scientists (not idiots) with a myriad of different research statistics and climate models which are publicly available. As the author of this tripe from the dc, Michael Bastasch, has absolutely no qualifications to analyze this data other than being a reader of the dc, his interpretation mean ZERO...it's more like his uninformed opinion.

Sigh. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

Hmm. Garbage in, garbage out, huh?

Do you feel the same way about the quality of the data we collect?

 

The thing to watch right now isn't land temperature, it's ocean temperature. The land temperature changes come later, after the larger part of the world, the oceans, have warmed.

An at-home experiment can give an example of why this matters. Take a small NON microwave safe plate and put it in your microwave for 2 minutes. Chances are it will be hot to the touch. Now take that plate and put it in a bigger container(if possible, try to make the container at least twice the size as the plate to more accurately simulate the land/ocean relationship on the Earth) with water that comes up almost to the lip on the edge of the plate(basically you want the underside submerged in the water, but not the top plate area). Microwaving for 2 minutes will cause the plate to not be as hot as it was when you microwaved it by itself because the heat energy first must now warm the water. Once equilibrium has been reached, then both will increase in temp together, but not before.

On the Earth, the oceans will continue to warm as it absorbs heat energy. But the problem is that warmer oceans melt glaciers which releases more water into the oceans changing it's salinity and temperature which changes ocean currents which affects the jet streams and heat spreading. Right now we're not seeing a rapid ocean temp growth because melting glaciers are equalizing it. But as you can see the world over, glaciers are melting and once they've melted past a certain point, the water they release will no longer be a mitigating factor and the carbon they release will help speed up the process even more. Once that happens, then you will see the land temperatures rising.

So what I'm saying is, by the time we've reached the point that you can go outside and look at your thermometer and say "Yep, global warming", it's already well on it's way. We're not quite there yet, but we will be.

And again, man-made or not doesn't matter. What matters is that's it happening. There are more reasons than just global warming to stop dumping millions of tons of pollutants and carbon into the environment.

 

What strikes me as interesting is that not all that long ago Climate Change advocates were howling that it was all 'settled science' beyond dispute and that the only issue remaining was (okay I exaggerate a trifle here) was WHEN not IF we were all gonna die from it. But now not a month goes by that some reputable scientist or research facility (all once touted by leftists as the be-all and end-all of scientific last words on the subject) announces the equivalent of an, "Oooops! Heh-heh, sorry folks, but it looks like we were wrong when we swore on a stack of Bibles that . . . " Yet STILL the Climate Change faithful believe with all their hearts and souls . . . it's just that the particular aspects of what they BELIEVE in this month or the next keep changing as their own scientists keep issuing "Oooops!" announcements. Sweet!.

 

The explanation is actually very easy. China and India act as a giant volcano, by emitting all sort of garbage to the air they are warming their part of the world ocean. Warm water pushes cold water from the Arctics, and from the Arctics it pushed to the Great Lakes and Canada.

 

Sure, we'll just take your unsubstantiated word for it.

And those in firm denial ignore the consensus of actual scientists and resort to using industry paid uncredentialed politically motivated hacks to support their worldview.

 

What an odd response to direct at a post that emphasizes the importance of actually reading the research...

Are you...are you saying that you're not going to take his unsubstantiated word that the actual science contains more information then you're aware of?

Uhh...are you going to refuse to take his world by not reading the research?

I think my head's about to explode.

Edit...

Ooh.. And now you've edited your post to remove key data. Where else have I seen such behavior?

 

Unsubstantiated? See what I mean, not interested in the science but only in the political consensus.

 

I don't give a rat's patoot if there were ZERO surface temps taken - what is actually happening to our weather, our lands, our seas, and our polar ice caps is all the indication you need that SOMETHING is happening and that something is global warming. Look a bit further, learn the science and you'll find out why it's been accelerating even faster than it should. And, I don't care if you have a temp recorder every ten feet across the entire planet - it will change nothing. Now, pull back the curtains and let in a little sunshine of reality.

 

`
Who is "we"?

 

Actually the NOAA's recent claim of no hiatus is based on a number of records. The important one is the one they use for bias adjustment and they have not released that so cannot be investigated. They claimed they would release that years ago.

 

If you take issue with the word ignore it.

After all, the same is done with the data collected.

Do you feel the same way about the total sum of the data collected?

 

Right, because belief trumps actual records. Making ignorant claims like it is accelerating even faster is not based on the facts but then, like you said, those facts are not important.

 

If the US isn't warming than it isn't global. Touche

 

You've obviously been ignoring every bit of data against your theories.
Such as this:

an indicator that the temperature rise can be attributed to weakening of the polar magnetic field deflecting solar radiance.
Or this obvious graph of historical earth temps:

But you will attempt to hit the liberal reset button in your mind and ignore all of it while calling me a denialist conspiracy nut, And the "moderators" will ding me for being mean to you.

 

Those areas in CA. where the drought is is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing desert. You know what deserts are known for? You guessed it, lack of water.

 

`
I have no issue with the raw data. Unfortunately, there is no one here in this political forum (including myself) who is qualified to give a scientific and empirical appraisal of that data. Making matters worse, the opinions (which is all I've seen here) here in regards to climate change, are laced with so much politically partisan rhetoric as to make them less than useless.That is why I usually steer clear of climate change discussions. The science and math behind it are complex and require the input of multidisciplinary scientists.

 

Wow, I think you just attempted to divide by zero here.

So what you're saying is that we have to look at the big picture, instead of relying on local anecdotes, but accurate big picture data is irrelevant due to your observation of local anecdotes?

 

The science is also very immature.