NASA Ranks This August Warmest On Record

"Warmest August on record" is a tough sell in most of the US.

In Indiana we had two days that month at 90 degrees. Most years 15-20.

Sounds like that data fakery the Warmers have become known for.

 

In actual science, we learned about cause and effect. The cause is the desire is out there for government to set 'carbon' taxes on everything that burns. This is a huge windfall the government. They pay scientists to make studies, and the effect is that the studies match what the sponsors want.

 

Do you have any actual evidence to support this nonsense or is it just a "gut" feeling? Why does the government have an incentive to push false science on climate change more than other research areas? Should we discount any and all publicly funded research? And if this is such a giant conspiracy, why has no whistleblower come forward?

Sounds like 9/11 trutherism to me. Also just a question, gov't funded research on climate change can't be trusted, but energy industry funded research can? I suppose we should've taken the tobacco industry's word that smoking doesn't cause cancer back in the 50s and 60s too.

 

Why do you assume those that are skeptical of the warming 'alarmism' and the proposed 'solutions' (usually costly to society in ways not yet considered) are OK with pollution? I have been an environmentalist 50 plus years, and was raised by another environmentalist. Every step of the way I make very deliberate choices to live a lifestyle that is easy on the environment.

I have serious attitude about people being wasteful and I have no appreciation for pollution.

However that does not make it OK to accept the politicization of science in the name of 'less pollution is better'.

I believe cutting emissions is the way to go . . . but not if that cut is inspired by alarmism and lies and the political corruption of science.

At the same time there are unintended consequences to changes IF they are not well thought through. Are you aware of the dilemma caused by the switch of food crops to fuel crops?

"Since 2007, the EU and US governments have given lavish support to agribusinesses to fill car fuel tanks with food – compulsory targets, and tax breaks and subsidies(pdf) worth billions annually. The result? Increased hunger, land grabbing, environmental damage and, ultimately, hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

Next month David Cameron and other EU leaders have an opportunity to intervene to put a halt to this idiocy when they vote in Brussels on the future of biofuels policy. With one child under 10 dying from hunger and related diseases every five seconds, they must do so.

It is ironic that biofuels are still promoted by some multinational corporations as an eco-friendly sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. Few, except those who directly profit from biofuels policies like the EU's 10% target for renewable transport energy, believe there are any environmental or social benefits. The reality is just another form of reckless exploitation of resources. Producing one litre of biofuels, for example, requires 2,500 litres of water. . . ​

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...26/burning-food-crops-biofuels-crime-humanity

 

What is the difference between weather and climate?

Weather reflects short-term conditions of the atmosphere while climate is the average daily weather for an extended period of time at a certain location.

- - - Updated - - -

How is it laughable? Are you familiar with the concept of regulation?

 

TheTaoOfBill,

As I suspected, the web articles I referenced were not drawn from peer-reviewed scientific journal reports, but rather from current field reports, polar ice accumulation satellite photos, and current field studies.

I can link to them, but it would be easier to simply do a web-search for 'polar ice accumulation'.
The current trend is remarkable.

I am quite certain that if the trend of polar ice build-up continues, there will be no shortage of peer-reviewed scientific journal reports that will be grist for the (unfortunately) political mill.

My position on the man-made global climate change has been consistent;
As many of you have heard me say, more than a few times probably, man should pollute less.
Man should dump less exhaust gasses into the air.
Man should take care not to dump trash, oil, and industrial waste into the waters.
Man should do all these things, BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

NOT because he is forced to by an over-reaching government, and not because of a series of less-than-credible reports (founded in junk science), generated by politicians who only want to use them to levy higher taxes on the citizenry, and to tax/punish corporations.

 

It is the right thing to do to be a good steward of your environment. Even individually not throwing trash out of your car window, one of my pet peeves. The problem is that CAGW is so tenuous that it is not smart to limit the economy and trash third world economies because of it.

 

Taxcutter says:
Don't tell me. Tell the buffoons in the media. When they sign on, get back to us.

 

NASA Ranks This August Warmest On Record

This is a lie and NASA knows it. We have ice RECORDS from Greenland telling us that the whole planet was much warmer before the Little Ice Age than it is today.

You talk about climate change: when the Medieval Warm Period that lasted from AD 950 to 1250 ended it rained for two years constantly and it just kept raining much more, with frequent huge storms and floods . Two things happened during that period that changed mankind. With the much wetter climate agriculture production fell and the growing population suffered a great famine devastating most of Europe from 1315-1322. Hunger and illness due to hunger killed 10% of the population and then in 1347 the Black Plague hit and killed 40% of the English and the plague of disease, famine and wars lasted for a century.

Then in the early 1400s the Little Ice Age got rolling and caused the plague to be compounded by people having to huddle together. Humans got over the climate change that led to the plagues of starvation, illness and war but a lot of humans died too.

As the Little Ice Age pushed giant ice sheets down the mountain valleys in Europe a lot of the grain storage was affected by the climate as well and it molded. If eaten the mold made people hallucinate as if that had taken LSD so a lot of people saw the old woman that cooked the wheat for them began flying around the room on her broom and the witch hunts began.

We are a product of our climate but I don't think that we can change it anymore than the people of those centuries did.

 

You're not even going to waste your time to ensure your characterizations are correct either, apparently. For you, the science is clearly faith based, as in you have faith in something you haven't confirmed on your own. When a dissonance with that faith arises, (such as my question) you hand wave it away.

This is not how science works.

Science is about questioning the work of others. It's not a conspiracy theory to question NASA's procedure. It's called review. You know, that peer review you keep talking about? That's how science works. It's not a system based on blind faith. It's a system of constant and persistent review. So I'll ask you again, what changed between July and August of this year that caused NASA to report different temperature indexes for their database of indexes going back to 1880?

I don't think you understand the question. What "outliers" did NASA find in August of 2014 that affected the index of January 1880 that weren't already eliminated from the data in June of 2014? Was NASA too stupid to eliminate "outliers" in June and suddenly had a revelation in August that they needed to go? Is that what you're trying to argue? Or could it be even more obtuse? Are you trying to argue that outliers recorded between June and August of 2014 were so outlying that throwing them out made it hotter in 1880?

Why is this not the first time that the record was modified? Was it "outliers" each time? Doesn't NASA have a duty to report the reason for these changes somewhere? Shouldn't that reason be publicly accessible as part of the peer review process?

 

It's not blind faith to acknowledge that I don't have a background in climate science. Do you?

 

You acknowledge you have no idea what you're talking about yet you make a whole bunch of truth claims about this science that you have no background in.

my favorite:

"Do I have to explain how weather works too?"

Since you obviously can't answer the rational, and very simple question I asked about NASA's conclusion, why don't you instead explain to me how weather works?

 

The GISS remember this is NASA in name only this is a division that is supposed ti be about space study but instead leaches tax payer funds to engage in AGW propoganda. Gavin Schmidt should be fired all the climate modelers at GISS should be fired and the GISS either returned to its stated purpose "space study" or shutdown for good.

Their temperature reconstruction is crap. It is the worst of yhe 4 major data sets abd serves only to provide the liberal press a monthly press release.

 

Photo is worth 1000 liberal loonies.

Ice cap growth from 2012 to 2013.

 

Well, eventually you're going to run out of places to call "the world", then what?

 

But, that's not the Good, Warmist-Approved Ice; that's the Evil, Big Oil Company-Approved Ice.

 

I'm more inclined to give it a fresh, new PC label..."Temperature Shift".

Heat is energy, if you shift energy from one area to another, how does that automatically equate to a global increase in energy?

The global warming "crisis" is a government contrived fraud. Period.

I accept that the earth warms and it cools, over long periods of time, we have proof of that. I don't accept a government "crisis" that it is because mankind does or does not do something.

Tree huggers and enviroweenies have been known for years. We know they'll say and do anything for their agenda, right down to causing potentially deadly results (driving spikes and nails into trees in hopes loggers get hurt, for example). One infamous boat captain required his crew to be willing to give their lives to save the wales. Wackos, one and all.

It's also known that the "carbon credit" scam was to handsomely profit one Al Gore as one of the owners of the clearing house for the credits....fortunately, smart Americans saw through that part of the scam and it didn't work out for him.

 

And the Dakotas just set a snow fall record...the most snow in August in 120+ years.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/

Doctored Data, Not U.S. Temperatures, Set a Record This Year

“Americans just lived through the hottest 12 months ever recorded, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Tuesday,” according to the May 15 Los Angeles Times.

Which begs the question, what does “recorded” mean?

To most people, the hottest temperatures ever “recorded” would imply that quality controlled thermometers registered higher readings during the past year than had ever occurred before. If you believe that this is what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) means by hottest temperatures ever “recorded,” then you are wrong.

Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.

Doctoring real-world temperature data is as much a part of the alarmist playbook as is calling skeptical scientists at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc., “anti-science.” Faced with the embarrassing fact that real-world temperature readings don’t show any U.S. warming during the past 80 years, the alarmists who oversee the collection and reporting of the data simply erase the actual readings and substitute their own desired readings in their place. If this shocks you, you are not alone.

The bureaucracy at NOAA and NASA who report the U.S. temperature data undertake what they term “correcting” the raw data. These corrections are not just one-time affairs, either. As time goes by, older temperature readings are systematically and repeatedly made cooler, and then cooler still, and then cooler still, while more recent temperature readings are made warmer, and then warmer still, and then warmer still.

Science blogger Steven Goddard at Real Science has posted temperature comparison charts (available here, and here) showing just how dramatically the NOAA and NASA bureaucrats have doctored the U.S. temperature data during the past several decades. As the before-and-after temperature charts show, government bureaucrats with power and funding at stake have turned a striking long-term temperature decline (as revealed by the real-world data), into a striking long-term temperature increase.

It is, of course, possible that certain factors can influence the real-world temperature readings such that a correction in real-world temperature data may be justified. The most important such influence is the growth of towns and cities around temperature stations. Forty years ago, for example, Chicago’s O’Hare airport was located in a largely rural area with surrounding agriculture and relatively sparse population. Forty years later, the city has expanded and consumed the entirety of the O’Hare region.

This begs the question, what is the localized temperature impact of our growing cities? As cities sprout up and grow, the expanding human population with its industrial machinery and urban land patterns create what is known as the urban heat island effect. Temperature readings in large cities, and even in modest-sized towns, are consistently and significantly warmer than the surrounding region. So as towns or cities grow in the vicinity of temperature stations, the more recent temperature readings show a warming trend that is entirely local and directly tied to local land-use decisions. It makes sense, therefore, to adjust more recent temperature readings downward to compensate for the artificial heat signal provided by the localized urban heat island effect.

Ironically, the government overseers of raw temperature data are doing just the opposite. As Goddard shows here, they are doctoring older temperature readings (when urban heat island effects were minimal) in a manner that makes the older temperature readings seem colder than was reported in the real-world data. At the same time, they are doctoring more recent temperature readings (when urban heat islands are more pronounced) in a manner that makes the more recent temperature readings seem warmer than the real-world data report.

The real-world U.S. temperature data show a long-term cooling trend. Common sense indicates that if the real-world data need adjustment, the proper adjustment is to further reduce recent temperature readings. Yet the bureaucrats who oversee the data have instead doctored the data to show a false, long-term warming pattern.

With billions upon billions of dollars in annual federal funding at stake, who do you suppose the manufactured warming trend benefits?

“The hottest 12 months ever recorded” indeed…..


And then we have:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record/

Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming

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.

'They continue to use a polluted mix of well-sited and poorly-sited stations.'

- Anthony Watts

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 [weather] 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 [to the NOAA data],” 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.


So, on one hand you expect us to "believe" these so-called "scientists" are such experts and know better than we do, yet for some odd reason they're too dumb to comprehend biased readings in artificially warm environments?

That's like asking us to believe someone is a top-notch race driver when they don't know what the clutch pedal is for.

 

Real world climate wasn't "changing" at the doom and gloom pace they initially panicked the world about. They have to manipulate their data to represent the desired result.

It's about to become a new fiscal year.....time to glom for dollars.

 

In the end though, this is just a vapid platitude so that people can feel good about their eco-awareness. Pollution is a construct. It's not good or bad. Chemicals are chemicals and they make up everything in the universe.

Some would have us believe that pollution (as a negative) is a condition of existence. They want to convince human kind that even the very components of the air you exhale is pollution. I think that's certainly an extreme view. The same folks that believe that we are in whole a part and product of natural systems would also have us believe that we somehow transcend nature to produce things that are unnatural. I'm not one of those people. The chemicals we produce aren't inherently something we need to avoid or limit the production of because such a premise is fundamentally impossible. Our very existence rearranges chemicals into new configurations that interact with the rest of the universe.

I think we have the ability to be a bit more rational about our use of resources for the benefit of mankind. For instance, rather than stopping production of DDT because it could possibly affect the habitat of ridge-backed East Asian mosquito larvae, maybe we should assess the benefit of its use. Instead of focusing on reduction of pollution, perhaps we should instead focus on efficiency, and standard of living. In the effort, I'll bet you'll find that someone will find an ingenious use for all these resources people now call "pollutants"

 

So is a video.

[video=youtube;GPLD8aylRiw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPLD8aylRiw[/video]

Uncle Al in 2007!

 

Well, you wouldn't pee in your drinking water would you? Just sayin. That said, CO2 is not a pollutant either.

 

Where do you think the pee goes?

You'd be shocked to find out how much ends up on your toothbrush.

 

That's because WE pee in our drinking water. The previous is what the indigenous population said about the white man.