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

Yeah, can you believe it? Environmental scientists have been insisting that the world in general is in a warming phase, but now the latest data from reputable U.S. climate research indicates that in reality the United States has been in a cooling trend for the last decade. Holy crude! Can't the Climate Change fanatics even agree on the nature of their "Oh my God we're all gonna die!" doom and gloom stories?

So dear Climate Change advocates, can you explain how the entire world can be overheating but the entire United States of America is simultaneously cooling down? Doesn't that seem inherently -- you know -- contradictory?

 

Attacking the source in 3...2...1...

 

Yeah, I thought about that, but how can the Climate Change advocates attack the source when it's ultimately from their own reputable scientists? I mean, obviously they CAN attack it, but won't that make them seem schizophrenic?

 

Liberals can attack almost anything. These days, when there is a dispute between two parties, watch how liberals wait to see what race or gender the parties are before choosing sides. That's how they think. So their own scientists will be expendable for the sake of the cause.

 

They have to wait for Huff-N-Puke to tell them what to say.

 

The latest claim by the NOAA that there is no hiatus depends on them taking the buoy data and homogenizing it to match the ship intake temperatures. Why didn't they homogenize the intake temperatures to match the buoy data? The fact that they did not even use the following data for that dataset says a lot.

Here is the graph from the NOAA. The Climate Reference Network doesn't even need any adjusting because of it's accuracy.

I smell an agenda here.



Here is the data with a trend line.

 

It will in any event be fun to see how they manage to rationalize the announcement into their current perspective regarding Climate Change; re: the world is warming but the U.S. is getting colder. I wish them luck with this one.

- - - Updated - - -

I expect that the Huffington Post will simply ignore the issue; pretend that it never happened.

 

Clearly the US is headed into another ice age. But what can be taxed now and sent to Africa so that money ends up in the hands of the corporations and bankers? Surely there has to be something to be taxed to keep us out of this dangerous ice age we are obviously headed into. Cause, if we were warming up, we would not see a slight cooling over the last 10 years. Wait!!! In global warming, you cool down before you warm up, and if you keep cooling, well that is just an anomaly, and sooner or later you will warm up, so we need to go ahead and tax co2 for the elites need the dough. You know they are really hurting since GDP growth is not that great, and even if they do get 99 percent of that, it just ain't enough, ya know? They really do need a carbon tax for they still have not hit the bottom of the pockets of working people yet, and they will not be happy until they scrape that change off th bottom of millions of pockets.

 

Since these more accurate stations do not have to be adjusted surely they should be trusted more than those that have to be adjusted? The old saw of figures do not lie, but liars can figure comes to mind.

While these highly trustworthy figures from these stations should throw some uncertainty in the claims made by these climatologists, my money says they will do their best to ignore them, and trust more in the figures they have to adjust. For how many have laid their careers on the line in their conclusions that we have had shoved down our throats for years? Even as there have been other serious scientists, not connected to the fossil fuel industries that have said, no so fast Tonto, and were ridiculed by the left who need a solution but may not have the problem.

We have all of these instruments worldwide, that when they were installed, were not surrounded by urban areas, but as the decades passed they were surrounded by the heat of urban areas being developed where they were located. And of course, those instruments would show a warming, and that is a no brainer. So then they had to adjust these temps downward, but apparently may have fudged in favor of the conclusion that the IPCC wanted as well as gov't who probably got a tickle up their leg over the thought of taxing the working people again. If you throw billions in research with an expected conclusion, the people doing the adjusting just might tend to give you exactly what you wanted, since they need to earn a living too. You spend billions and want something, you just might tend to get what you want. That is the power of money to even affect a limited knowledge science such as climatology.

 

D

It might be, if the US comprised the entire world. But the last time I looked at a map, it didn't. Only a portion of it. I know. As you, I was shocked

 

The problem with that rationalization, however, is that the United States is not a locked box. Weather patterns are not fixed in place, but migrate from area to area and -- gasp! -- nation to nation. So while over the United States they cool the nation but while over other areas of the world they warm land masses and nations? Oh my!

 

So the US doesn't count, unless it supports AGW.

If they were using the high tech instruments outside of urban areas in the rest of the world, the results would probably match the US. No fudge factor involved.

- - - Updated - - -

Or the fudging that happened with the old locations in the US also happened in the rest of the world. That makes just as much sense. And if probably the fact of the matter. Not like these other places were using data that did not have to be adjusted. Figures do not lie, but liars can figure. I trust the figures that do not have to be adjusted.

What are the odds, that when these new locations were used that only one nation showed a slight cooling instead of warming? What are the odds that just one nation cooled slightly while the rest of the world warmed? Time to update the instruments in the rest of the world, and put them in locations not apt to become a part of an urban area. Then we keep human hands and brains out of it, and let the instruments do the talking. Humans are not trustworthy when billions of bucks enter into the equation.

 

I realize the right is gonna jump on anything that says were not warming as proof humans are not having an effect on climite

but fact is,

1. this study could be bunk
2. melting the ice is causing the weather to change, some areas get warmer, some colder
3. were entering a ice age and global warming then would be a good thing
4. who knows.. that is why more research is needed

I will leave it to science to figure it out, not the politicians

.

 

The new data pretty much mirrors what the global satellite data has been showing. The same satellite data that the NOAA used to incorporate until it deviated from the agenda.

 

Supposed to be 98° here tomorrow, so much like the economic recovery, my city is also being left behind on this cooling down thing too

 

It's all conspiracy now. That's all that's left with deniers. Conspiracy and super zoomed in graphs that reduce a 100 year trend to a 8 year bit of garbage data.

 

If the earth were to be getting colder it would have to be because heat is leaving earth's surface and atmosphere (where we live/care about), or because less solar radiation is reaching us over a long period of time, changing the balance between the deadly cold of space and solar radiation.

Moving heat from point a to point b on the surface (as you are talking about) doesn't do that. So, measuring one region of tiny USA and thinking that tells us whether the planet is warming is obvious nonsense. Measuring earth's temperature is done with large numbers of measuring stations under our seas, on land around the world and in spacecraft.

Global warming CAN cause weather patterns to change, though. That is, it can change the way heat is distributed across earth's surface. And, that can have a huge impact. For example as we see in CA, changing weather patterns can have a huge impact on agriculture.

 

I know what you mean. It's like yesterday when I cam across this lengthy article arguing that since 2000 conspiracy theorists have shot way up in predictive accuracy and then he went on to point out where every Right of Center behind the scenes screw-up had been correctly theorized as causative factors in massively greater screw-ups predicted but -- gasp! -- could discover no Left of Center screw ups anywhere since the year 2000, and that therefore there couldn't possibly be anything legitimate for conspiracy theorists to theorize about.

Now is that oddly convenient or what? so essentially what our leftists in this thread are saying is that the data collected by their own well-respected people and sources is irrelevant because they prefer their other doomsday scenario of global warming instead. Sweet!

 

The climate change deniers are nothing if not myopic.
It's all part of their interminable paranoid hysteria, thinking that the whole world is somehow in cahoots to take away their money.

 

Global warming/climate change is just that - global, even if some places are cooler than average. That makes as much sense as pointing to areas in the U.S. with above average rainfall and then using that to question California's lack thereof. Oh, yeah - your source sucks, too.

 

Satellite records do not show the same trend as more sparse and highly manipulated surface data. There is a reason surface data is highly manipulated. For instance, they don't measure over the Arctic so literally guess using nearby land surface readings. Many of the land readings are taken by volunteers and many locations change times when taking the record or just quit and drop off the record. Ocean data is a mixture of many different methods including dropping a bucket into the ocean and bringing it up to the deck to measure or engine intake temperatures, which were never designed to be used for accurate climate data.

NOAA's best temperature record is the Climate Reference Network (designed for recording climate) over the US which mirrors what the global Satellite data shows which is slight cooling this century (basically no statistical change in warming or cooling).

So ask yourself why the NOAA recently adjusted the surface temperature data (not incorporating the Climate Reference Network or satellite data) to make the past cooler and make the hiatus, which all other datasets show, disappear by adjusting the buoy data to match the engine intake data?

 

Warming, cooling, "what difference does it make now" (as Hillary would say). It all gets classified as "climate change", which, as we're being told, is the root cause for everything from floods to draughts, is the greatest threat to our national security and can, in one way another, be blamed for almost anything globalist's choose.
You're spot on, Gate, noting the contridiction here, but almost all the left's progressive thinking is chalked full of contradictions. Hell, now they can't even decide what gender they are...that kinda says it all.

 

Like Obama blaming more asthma on CO2 when an asthmatic exhales 40,000 ppm of CO2 with every breath. Must be an autoimmune disease eh?

 

Pretending the source is an authority on the topic... ENGAGED.

Michael Bastach graduated with a political science degree.

He then interned for Koch.
Then he worked for Heritage.
And now he blogs at the Daily Caller, a well-known right-wing rag.

The source of this article? Anthony Watts who the article describes as "a veteran meteorologist." The only problem is that Watts never received a degree of any type from his Alma Mater, Purdue. In addition, Watt's is paid by the "Heartland Institute," a well-known far right organization that specializes in climate change denial.

So who are we supposed to believe? A blogger with a biased political agenda using a college dropout as a source,

OR actual bona fide scientists?

NOAA says there’s no such thing as the global warming ‘pause.’

Scientists conclude that global warming never went on 'hiatus'

I know both who I'm going to believe - the general consensus of ACTUAL scientists - and who the right-wingers and other climate change denialists will believe. This thread is further proof...

 

What's the percentage of the globe in which accurate surface temperatures are recorded?