Filled Under: NOAA

Climate Records Shattered in 2013

Climate Records Shattered in 2013

NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012

NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012

NOAA

(NaturalNews) As global warming and climate change alarmists burn tons of fossil fuel jetting around the world, lecturing people about how burning tons of fossil fuel is destroying our planet, federal government agencies and learned academic institutions are quietly revising previously published data to reflect “an inconvenient truth” — that, contrary to their earlier claims, the earth is actually getting cooler, and weather is actually getting milder.One of the most recent examples of this fraud was reported by The Daily Caller: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been criticized for manipulating temperature records to give the illusion of a warming trend. Since then, the agency has been caught changing temperature data from both the past and present.

Here’s the story. A couple of years ago, NASA scientists and climatologists declared July 2012 to be the hottest month in a report titled, “Too Hot to Handle?” [See it here: http://science.nasa.gov]. During the summer months of that year, the country experienced widespread drought and wildfires burned more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA statistics and data.

Now, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on
record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.” [You can see that assessment here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov]

‘You can’t get any clearer proof’ of fraud

“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

When checked by The Daily Caller, that claim by the NOAA was still available on the agency’s website. However:

[W]hen meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data [June 29] he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.

Watts wrote: “Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States. Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.” [See his blog post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com]

Watts had used data from NOAA’s “Climate at a Glance” plots from 2012, a graphic showing that July 2012 was the hottest month on record at 77.6°F. July 1936 — which was during the infamous Dust Bowl years — is listed at only 77.4°F.

He ran the same data plot again on June 29 and discovered that NOAA inserted a new number in for July 1936; the average temperature for July 1936 was made slightly higher than July 2012, meaning, again, that July 1936 is the hottest year on record.

“You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote. “This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately.”

He went on to note that in “one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.

“This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.”

U.S. ‘cooling since the Thirties’

Watts’ assessment of the NOAA data manipulation came on the heels of earlier reports stating that the federal agency was lowering past temps to create the illusion of a warming trend in the U.S. that did not coincide with the raw data.

The after-the-fact data manipulation was documented by climate blogger Steven Goddard, which was summarily reported by Britain’s Telegraph newspaper earlier in June.

“Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models,” the paper’s Christopher Booker wrote. “The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.”

The real data, Booker said, “show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record.”

Sources:

http://dailycaller.com

http://science.nasa.gov

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

http://science.naturalnews.com

Global warming of the Earth’s surface has decelerated

Global warming of the Earth’s surface has decelerated (Viewpoint)

The recently-released National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. government offers considerable cause for concern for climate calamity, but downplays the decelerating trend in global surface temperature in the 2000s, which I document here.

Many climate scientists are currently working to figure out what is causing the slowdown, because if it continues, it would call into question the legitimacy of many climate model projections (and inversely offer some good news for our planet).

An article in Nature earlier this year discusses some of the possible causes for what some have to referred to as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus”.  Explanations include the quietest solar cycle in over a hundred years, increases in Asian pollution, more effective oceanic heat absorption, and even volcanic activity. Indeed, a peer-reviewed paper published in February estimates that about 15 percent of the pause can be attributed to increased volcanism. But some have questioned whether the pause or deceleration is even occurring at all.

 Verifying the pause

You can see the pause (or deceleration in warming) yourself by simply grabbing the freely available data from NASA and NOAA. For the chart below, I took the annual global temperature difference from average (or anomaly) and calculated the change from the prior year. So the very first data point is the change from 2000 to 2001 and so on. One sign of data validation is that the trends are the same on both datasets.  Both of these government sources show a slight downward slope since 2000:

(Matt Rogers)

You can see some of the spikes associated with El Niño events (when heat was released into the atmosphere from warmer than normal ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific) that occurred in 2004-05 and 2009-10. But the warm changes have generally been decreasing while cool changes have grown.

To be sure, both sets of data points show an mean annual change of +0.01C during the 2000s. But, if current trends continue for just a few more years, then the mean change for the 2000s will shift to negative; in other words, the warming would really stop. The current +.01C mean increase in temperatures is insufficient to verify the climate change projections for major warming (even the low end +1-2C) by mid-to-late century. A peer reviewed study in Nature Climate Change published in 2013 drew the same conclusion: “Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models,” it says.

Addressing objections

Whenever this surprising result (that warming has slowed) is pointed out, it raises some objections. Here are a few (feel free to add your own in the comments section!):

“You are cherry-picking your start and end times.”

This is a common argument when any data are shown. The recently released National Climate Assessment used 1901 to 1960 as its definition for “normal” weather in a number of its benchmark analyses. Other reports use the entire century-wide mean, while yet others use the National Weather Service conventional 1981-2010 climatology. All of this is cherry-picking one way or another. The key here is to see if the data are behaving as they should.

For the chart I show above, I could have easily chosen the very warm 1998 as my starting point to amplify my trend line, but instead I cleanly chose the 2000s. However, another point to make that everyone will agree with is that I’m plotting temperature coinciding with the highest global atmospheric CO2 concentration. Therefore, no matter what you believe the sensitivity is, the impact should be strongest in these recent years vs. any others.

Space Elevator

“The last decade was still the warmest of all time.”

This is true per the data sets that I am using (NASA and NOAA), so no dispute there. However, in order for climate change projections to verify, we need to continue breaking records more often than not. In the NASA data set, 2013 only broke one monthly record (2012 only tied one), meaning that most of the time, we are not moving upward. Without breaking new warm records, we continue to flat line and each year, fall further and further behind projections.

“Your sample size is too small.”

My thirteen data points from the 2000s are deemed by critics as not enough data to make any case at all. I could have expanded to 1998 to raise the size to 15, but I readily admit that the more data the better in these situations. The question then becomes what sample size would you need to see to start getting concerned that the climate models might be too warm? The trend line for either data set suggests the mean change could shift negative in just the next few years. Would that be sufficient?

Every person- every scientist- may have a different definition here. I will say that the global annual temperature is not just one figure, but a culmination of thousands of data points- a very large sample size in itself! The deceleration in warming is inconsistent with climate model projections if it were to continue. You can choose to agree with that prior statement, but also caveat with the usual “but we need more data”. I’m fine with that.

“The data are not accurate.”

This has become my new favorite, because for years and years, key figures in the climate change research community have used these data points to support the view warming is occurring at an alarming pace. Now, we hear from some scientists that this data is “masking” reality, such that the real global warming is buried in the deep oceans in areas that are difficult to measure.

For example, climate scientist Kevin Trenberth notes the slow down in warming may just mean that it is “manifested in different ways” now. Trenberth accurately describes the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which has slowed down warming trends during prior negative states (like its current condition). But climate change modeling fails to show this, which suggests it’s  not capturing important oceanic processes and could well be overdoing climate sensitivity to CO2 increases.

Another “data are inaccurate” argument is that about 15 percent of the planet is not being counted, including large sections of the Arctic which have warmed markedly in recent years. One recent study (Cowtan and Way, 2013) suggests that if those areas were measured (and are estimated in this study using satellite data), the warming would be much stronger and no pause would be seen. Assuming this study is correct, it would not undo the pause in the warming outside the Arctic where most people live. Furthermore, the rate of warming it estimates globally (factoring in the steeper Arctic warming) is still at at the very low end of climate model projections.  The study appears to be a valuable contribution but further work is needed to confirm its results.

“Your assessment is accurate, but it doesn’t matter.”

The main point here is that yes, we are indeed seeing this slowdown, it is real, but it is only temporary. The recently-released NCA acknowledges the slowdown in Appendix 3 and even shows a chart of it (see below).

(National Climate Assessment)

However, it notes that these periods are temporary, driven by natural variability-induced modifications to the climate system (factors such as the El Niño-La Niña cycles). All of this may indeed be true, but note that the current pause is longer than prior ones indicated on the chart, so again, the question becomes (and they don’t answer this) how long is too long? You can even see their red line outlining the latest pause on the right side of the chart, but not extending to include the last three years which looks even longer than its predecessors.

(Editor’s note: For alternative perspectives, see: Faux Pause: Ocean Warming, Sea Level Rise And Polar Ice Melt Speed Up, Surface Warming To Follow and Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half)

Update (6/21/2014):   NASA GISS revises their historical data monthly, so there have indeed been some changes since I produced the top graph earlier this spring.  The chart below shows these changes, which do not change the fundamental argument of deceleration, but do adjust the mean of change from +0.01C to +0.02C.

You can see the changes here by year:

newvsoldnasa

 

5 Questions from “The Earth Forum”

The Earth Forum (http://theearthforum.tumblr.com/)
Dialogues concerning Earth and the environment

ask me anything

rss
archive

Question 5

Question

People are concerned that burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, will lead to increased carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere, which will lead to increased global warming, which will lead to potentially catastrophic events.

Since 2005, the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have increased each year. Has the temperature of Earth increased each year, as well?

Which is the correct answer?

A: Since 2005, the temperature of the Earth has increased each year, in step with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

B: Since 2005, the temperature of the earth has, on average, decreased, despite the rise in CO2 levels.

C: Global warming is not real.

D: You are not a climate scientist, and, therefore, are incapable of truly understanding the question or the answer. If you are a climate scientist, you are not funded by an approved green organization, and, therefore, are not credible. If you are a climate scientist funded by an approved green organization, submit a draft of your answer to your funding organization for review.

Answer

The correct answer is B: Since 2005, the temperature of Earth has, on average, decreased, despite the rise in CO2 levels.

Explanation

According to NOAA, in 2005, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, as measured at the observatory at Mauna Loa, was 379.80 ppm (parts per million). The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature for 2005 was 14.55 degrees Celsius.

The following year, 2006, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increased to 381.90 ppm, but the annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature decreased to 14.50 degrees Celsius.

In 2007, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increased to 383.76 ppm, but the annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature decreased to 14.49 degrees Celsius.

In 2008, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increased to 385.59 ppm, but the annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature decreased to 14.41 degrees Celsius.

In the years 2006 through 2012, the level of CO2 increased each year. However, over that period of time, the average temperature was 14.48 degrees Celsius, cooler than the 2005 temperature. The temperature for 2010 was higher than 2005, but promptly dropped down in 2011 to a temperature lower than 2005.

In 2012, CO2 was at 393.82 ppm, higher than any of the earlier years. However, the temperature was 14.48 degrees Celsius, lower than 2005.

For information on temperatures, see: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13 and see ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

For a NOAA graph, see: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/13/2005-2012?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=2005&endtrendyear=2012

For information on CO2 levels, see: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html#mlo_full
9 months ago
Question 4

Question

For the ten year period ending on December 31, 2012, what changes occurred with Earth’s temperature?

A: The temperature increased.

B. The temperature stayed the same.

C. The temperature decreased.

D. What warming? I still see snow in the mountains.

E. This inquiry is irresponsible because it causes people to question what they have been told about global warming.

Answer

The correct answer is C: The temperature decreased.

Explanation

According to NOAA, Earth’s temperature for 2003 was 14.52 degrees Celsius. The temperature for 2012 was 14.47 degrees Celsius. Thus, the temperature of Earth was lower at the end of the ten year period.

See graph from NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/13/2003-2012?trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=2003&endtrendyear=2012

In the first year (2003) of the ten year period, the temperature of Earth was 14.52 degrees Celsius. In the years that followed, Earth’s temperature, on average, decreased from the 2003 level. The average temperature of Earth over the ten year period from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2012 was 14.49 degrees Celsius. At the end of the ten year period, Earth’s temperature had dropped to 14.47 degrees Celsius.

The temperatures used herein are the annual global land and ocean temperatures as determined by NOAA. See: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/13

NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
9 months ago
Question 3

Question

Each year, carbon dioxide, CO2 , is released into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to the warming of the planet. How much of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year comes from man-made sources and human activities, and how much comes from natural sources? Which of the following is the correct answer?

A: Most of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year comes from man-made sources and human activities; only a small percentage comes from natural sources.

B: Approximately half comes from man-made sources and human activities, and half comes from natural sources.

C: Approximately 5% of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year comes from man-made sources and human activities: about 95% is from natural sources.

D: Global warming is simply a scare tactic.

E: We don’t have time for a meeting of flat-earth society.

Answer

The correct answer is: C: Approximately 5% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year comes from man-made sources and human activities; about 95% is from natural sources.

According to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), at Chapter 7, Section 7.3.1.1, vegetation, soil and detritus annually releases 119.6 Gt of carbon into the atmosphere, the ocean annually releases 90.6 Gt of carbon into the atmosphere, burning of fossil fuels (which is human caused) annually releases 6.6 Gt of carbon into the atmosphere, and land use change (which is human caused) annually releases 1.6 Gt of carbon into the atmosphere. Thus, the total amount of carbon released into the atmosphere from man-made sources and human causes is 8 Gt annually, representing about 5% of the total amount released annually from all sources.

The report indicates that much of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year is absorbed by natural processes, taking much of the CO2 out of the atmosphere.

At Chapter 7, section 7.3.2.4.1, the report acknowledges that since 1960, the rate of growth of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied widely: in some years there is a very low rate of growth, in other years there is a much higher rate of growth. This has occurred despite the rather steady increase in CO2 emissions from man-made sources and human events since 1960.

The report acknowledges that the variation in the rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 cannot be explained by variability of fossil fuel emissions.

See: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html#7-3-1

Gt is the abbreviation for gigatonnes. A gigatonne is equal to one million tonnes. A single tonne is equal to 1000 kilograms.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigatonne#Gigatonne

The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change established by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization.
9 months ago
Question 2

Question

After hearing a talk on climate change, a young student asked when the climate first started changing. So, when did the climate first begin to change?

A: After the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency

B: After detonation of first atomic bomb

C: After the start of Industrial Revolution

D: After the appearance of Homo Sapiens

E: Prior to the appearance Tyrannosaurus Rex

F: 666 years after the Big Bang

Answer

The correct answer is E: Prior to the appearance of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

The climate has been changing for millions of years, even before Tyrannosaurus Rex.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
10 months ago
Question 1

Question

A student just learning about global warming asked if the earth had experienced prior periods of global warming. What is the correct answer to give to this student?

A: Yes

B: No

C: Global warming is nonsense

D: All issues relating to global warming and climate change have been fully answered. The time for questions is over. Only wealth transfers, carbon taxes, and government subsidies can save the planet now.

Answer

The correct answer is A: Yes

The earth has had periods of global warming in the past. For supporting data and information, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
10 months ago
Our Agenda

Our agenda is to ask questions, provide factually correct answers, and identify and separate fact from opinion, argument, and beliefs, irregardless of conventional wisdom or political concerns.
10 months ago
Why We Are Here

We seek to promote understanding about Earth and the environment through dialogues on global warming, climate change, and mankind’s use of land, water, air, flora and fauna.
10 months ago
Who We Are

We are individuals concerned about Earth and the environment.