US Government agencies like NOAA and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and its affiliate agencies are tasked with educating a trusting public about Earth’s ever-changing climate. However, the USGCRP’s climate assessments are little more than environmental propaganda, essentially junk science.
Tony Heller, who runs the website RealClimateScience.com, exposes malicious data manipulation by USGCRP and other government entities. A lifelong environmentalist who has used a bicycle for all of his local travel over the last 40 years, Heller holds a B.S. in geology (Arizona State University) and a Master’s in electrical engineering (Rice University).
Heller produced a video that exposes the fraudulent presentation of climate data by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. USGCRP cherry-picks the starting point of climate graphs to give the false impression that hot days, wildfires, sea level rise and other climate indicators are undergoing cataclysmic negative changes, when just the opposite is true. Heller’s video clearly shows this:
The next video provides a chronological look at the original IPCC investigation into global temperature changes, revealing how it was compromised by a desire to reach a certain conclusion, with senior scientists deliberately downplaying contradictions in the underlying data in order to present a tidy narrative. This shows how the fake climate change narrative was made. The “Hockey stick” chart is thoroughly debunked here:
Climate Gate 2.0 emails from several years ago shows how climate scientists like Michael Mann frequently used the phrase “the cause” in many of his emails. The details of what data have been suppressed are contained in this article.
Manipulating climate data – and coordinating that manipulation – has been the alarmists’ key in “proving” their bogus theories on anthropogenic global warming.
Paul Plante says
Point I is that this “climate change” hysteria, which started out as “global warming” until that slogan lost traction when the world started cooling instead, necessitating another slogan, has been a huge boon for the lawyer’s trade, which always has a lot of mouths to feed, as law school mills like Harvard continue to turn out swarms of new lawyers and lawyerettes to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
Point II is that this “climate change” hysteria, for hysteria it most certainly is, by design, since we need a real “crisis” to make us so scared we can’t think straight, which makes us far easier to manipulate and fleece, has been a real financial boon to money-hungry universities seeking to boost their profits by creating whole new departments to deal with “climate justice,” a meaningless term that can mean whatever you need it to mean at the moment.
Point III is that this “climate change” hysteria has opened up a whole new job market for all the new Ph.D.’s in “climate science,” another meaningless term, since climate is merely the weather, which non-Ph.D.’s have been studying since at least the 1600’s, who would otherwise be flipping burgers at McDonald’s while feverishly trying to pay off the exorbitant bill for their worthless degrees in “climate science” and “climate justice” which only have value if there is a “crisis” for them to “solve.”
So the “climate crisis” has been good for the U.S. economy by creating a lot of work for people who would otherwise be on the dole somewhere, and that in turn is great for the U.S. GDP!
So, if you are one of those lawyers, or lawyerettes or Ph.D.’s reaping a financial windfall from this “climate crisis,” it’s a win-win-win for you all the way around!
As for the rest of us, the beat goes on.
As for me, it was 8 degrees above the Fahrenheit zero the last couple of days, which sounded awful cold, so I made it quite a bit warmer by averaging the temperature here with them temperature in Death Valley and the temperature in Key West, Florida, and by God, I almost had it warm enough here to go swimming, if only I had an axe to cut through the ice with to actually get at the water, which still thought it was below freezing.
Oh, well.
Next time, I’ll have to find even more hot places to average our temperature with, and I can probably get it up to where it is actually quite balmy, in my mind, anyway.
anthony sacco says
were in a new climate”ice age” record low averages being reported all over U.S ,even the North Sea is getting lower.
Paul Plante says
Speaking of the “climate crisis,” which crisis was invented by lawyers as a new wide-open field of litigation, being a windfall for the lawyer’s trade, which can only make money by sowing turmoil and discord and then milking the turmoil for profit as is the case here, despite these law firms calling themselves “not-for-profits,” we need go no further than the list of lawyers involved in Juliana v. Hussein Obama and the USA case just decided by the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 17 January 2020 where Judge Hurwitz, Circuit Judge, wrote as follows:
The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.”
The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek — an order requiring the government to develop a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.”
Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power.
Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.
end quotes
COUNSEL
Jeffrey Bossert Clark (argued), Assistant Attorney General; Andrew C. Mergen, Sommer H. Engels, and Robert J. Lundman, Attorneys; Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.
Julia A. Olson (argued), Wild Earth Advocates, Eugene, Oregon; Philip L. Gregory, Gregory Law Group, Redwood City, California; Andrew K. Rodgers, Law Offices of Andrea K. Rodgers, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Theodore Hadzi-Antich and Ryan D. Walters, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Austin, Texas, for Amici Curiae Nuckels Oil Co., Inc. DBA Merit Oil Company; Libety Packing Company, LLC; Western States Trucking Association; and National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.
Richard K. Eichstaedt, University Legal Assistance, Spokane, Washington, for Amici Curiae Eco-Justice Ministries; Interfaith Moral Action on Climate; General Synod of the United Church of Christ; Temple Beth Israel of Eugene, Oregon; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; Leadership Counsel of the Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Monroe, Michigan; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas’ Institute Leadership Team; GreenFaith; Leadership Team of the Sisters of Providence of Saint-Mary-of-the-Woods Indiana; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Climate Change Task Force of the Sisters of Providence of Saint Mary-of-the-Woods; Quaker Earthcare Witness; Colorado Interfaith Power and Light; and the Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces.
Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler, Law Office of Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler, San Antonio, Texas; D. Inder Comar, Comar LLP, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae International Lawyers for International Law.
Wendy B. Jacobs, Director; Shaun A. Goho, Deputy Director; Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; for Amici Curiae Public Health Experts, Public Health Organizations, and Doctors.
David Bookbinder, Niskanen Center, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Niskanen Center.
Courtney B. Johnson, Crag Law Center, Portland, Oregon, for Amici Curiae League of Women Voters of the United States and League of Women Voters of Oregon.
Oday Salim, Environmental Law & Sustainability Clinic; Julian D. Mortensen and David M. Uhlmann, Professors; Alexander Chafetz, law student; University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; for Amicus Curiae Sunrise Movement Education Fund.
Zachary B. Corrigan, Food & Water Watch, Inc., Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Food & Water Watch, Inc.; Friends of the Earth – US; and Greenpeace, Inc.
Patti Goldman, Earthjustice, Seattle, Washington; Sarah H. Burt, Earthjustice, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae EarthRights International, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
David Hunter and William John Snape III, American University, Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae International Environmental Law and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide—US.
Timothy M. Bechtold, Bechtold Law Firm PLLC, Missoula, Montana, for Amici Curiae Members of the United States Congress.
Rachael Paschal Osborn, Vashon, Washington, for Amici Curiae Environmental History Professors.
Thomas J. Beers, Beers Law Offices, Seeley Lake, Montana; Irma S. Russell, Professor, and Edward A. Smith, Missouri Chair in Law, the Constitution, and Society, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, Kansas City, Missouri; W. Warren H. Binford Professor or Law & Director, Clinical Law Program, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon; for Amicus Curiae Zero Hour on Behalf of Approximately 32,340 Children and Young People.
Helen H. Kang, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, Golden Gate University School of Law, San Francisco, California; James R. May and Erin Daly, Dignity Rights Project, Delaware Law School, Wilmington, Delaware; for Amici Curiae Law Professors.
Toby J. Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for Amici Curiae Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products, Inc.; Royal Blue Organics; Organically Grown Company; Bliss Unlimited, LLC, dba Coconut Bliss; Hummingbird Wholesale; Aspen Skiing Company, LLC; Protect Our Winters; National Ski Areas Association; Snowsports Industries America; and American Sustainable Business Council.
Alejandra Núñez and Andres Restrepo, Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club, Oakland, California; for Amicus Curiae Sierra Club.
Paul Plante says
As to NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, being compromised as a serious scientific enterprise, as opposed to what it is, a political tool of the IPCC, as we saw in the December 1, 2019 Cape Charles Mirror thread titled “Opinion: On NOAA, Contrived Science and the IPCC” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/opinion-on-noaa-contrived-science-and-the-ipcc/ NOAA is compromised precisely because its Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research Ko Barrett, where she supervises daily operations and administration of NOAA’s research enterprise, is at the same time a vice chair of the IPCC, where for over 15 years, she has represented the United States on delegations charged with negotiating and adopting scientific assessments undertaken by the IPCC, and she has also served for over a decade as a lead negotiator for the United States on the United Nations treaty on climate change.
So, where does her loyalty really lie then, given that the IPCC is in essence an independent, autonomous government structure separate from the government of the United States of America?
So talk about a serious conflict of interest, there it is in plain sight.
As to getting buried in bull**** in here, which we certainly are by the climate crisis crowd, and the “hockey stick” graph, a website calling itself “Skeptical Science” has an article entitled “How reliable are CO2 measurements?” where the following statement is made, to wit:
Mauna Loa is often used as an example of rising carbon dioxide levels because its the longest, continuous series of directly measured atmospheric CO2.
The reason why it’s acceptable to use Mauna Loa as a proxy for global CO2 levels is because CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere.
Consequently, the trend in Mauna Loa CO2 (1.64 ppm per year) is statistically indistinguishable from the trend in global CO2 levels (1.66 ppm per year).
If global CO2 was used in Figure 1 above, the result “hockey stick” shape would be identical.
end quotes
Except as we can clearly see from the EarthSky article “6 things to know about carbon dioxide” posted July 2, 2019, CO2 is not evenly distributed, to wit:
CO2 is not evenly distributed.
Satellite observations show carbon dioxide in the air can be somewhat patchy, with high concentrations in some places and lower concentrations in others.
For instance, the map below shows carbon dioxide levels for May 2013 in the mid-troposphere, the part of the atmosphere where most weather occurs.
At the time there was more carbon dioxide in the northern hemisphere because crops, grasses, and trees hadn’t greened up yet and absorbed some of the gas.
The transport and distribution of CO2 throughout the atmosphere is controlled by the jet stream, large weather systems, and other large-scale atmospheric circulations.
This patchiness has raised interesting questions about how carbon dioxide is transported from one part of the atmosphere to another – both horizontally and vertically.
end quotes
In fact, as we can see from the article “NASA Releases New CO2 Data, Refutes Conventional Wisdom” by Ucilia Wang on December 15, 2009, that information has been known for some time, but since it goes against the grain of the propaganda being put out by the climate crisis crowd, it is ignored, to wit:
SAN FRANCISCO — NASA has released the first-ever set of carbon dioxide data based only on daily observations by a satellite instrument, a new tool that will help researchers study climate change and improve weather predictions.
The data came from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) that NASA launched aboard its Aqua spacecraft in 2002.
Since then, AIRS has amassed information about carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, methane and temperatures in the mid-troposphere.
The mid-troposphere is about three to seven miles above the Earth’s surface.
For carbon dioxide, AIRS measures and tracks its concentration and movement as it moves across the globe.
Observation data is critical for scientists to validate their models or adjust them to better predict the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the weather and climate.
The data have already refuted a long-held belief that carbon dioxide is evenly distributed and do so fairly quickly in the atmosphere once it rises from the ground, said Moustafa Chahine, the science team leader of the AIRS project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco Tuesday.
“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the mid-troposphere,” Chahine said.
“You can see the jet stream splitting the carbon dioxide clump.”
AIRS data shows instead that carbon dioxide, which has seen its rate of increase accelerating from 1 part per million in 1955 to 2 parts per million today, would require about two to three years before it blends in, he said.
The atmosphere currently has about 400 parts per million.
How well and how quickly carbon dioxide blends in is important for understanding how much and how long carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere and affects the climate before some of it is scooped up by Earth’s natural scrubbers, such as the ocean.
And by extension, that knowledge would be crucial in determining what humans must do to minimize their emissions or use technologies to capture and sequester their carbon dioxide pollution before it escapes into the atmosphere.
Chahine said several climate models have assumed an even distribution because researchers didn’t have adequate data to show how the carbon dioxide is vertically transported through the atmosphere.
“The data we have now will help researchers improve their models’ vertical transport,” Chahine said.
Although scientists knew that carbon dioxide doesn’t stay in one location – winds blow pollution from Asia across the Pacific to reach the United States – their models largely showed a smaller amount of the emission move from the north to the south than what data from AIRS have demonstrated.
end quotes
And if CO2 is not evenly distributed, then the greenhouse gas models being used to make us feel panic because Greta Thunberg is scared are not accurate, plain and simple.
Will NOAA come clean and tell us that?
Frankly, based on my conversations with that agency, I frankly doubt it, because it needs this climate crisis to secure future funding for itself and the IPCC.
Paul Plante says
With respect to “global average temperature” supposedly sky-rocketing upward because of carbon dioxide, if one were to bother to consult “WORLDS IN THE MAKING – THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, published March, 1908, one would find this following data point, to wit:
The actual mean temperature of the surface of the earth is 16 Cent. (61 F.).
end quotes
Now, fast-forward to our times today, some one hundred twelve years later, where we have as follows with respect to global average temperature:
GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean.
According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C).
That would put the planet’s average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).
end quotes
So, hmmmm, the global average temperature in 1908 as reported by Arrhenius, an acknowledged expert in the field of science, was 16 degrees C, and the global average temperature in 2017 was 14.9 degrees C, which is a degree C BELOW the global average temperature one hundred nine years earlier.
So, is the global average temperature really warming?
But what am I saying, it must be because the IPCC and NOAA say it is so, and who are we to challenge anything NOAA says, even if it is not true?
Paul Plante says
According to a NOAA article entitled “Climate Change: Global Temperature” by Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman on January 16, 2020, the 2-degree increase in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the pre-industrial era (1880-1900) might seem small, but it means a significant increase in accumulated heat.
According to NOAA, and truly, we only have their word to take for it, and their word is no longer trustworthy, that extra heat is driving regional and seasonal temperature extremes, reducing snow cover and sea ice, intensifying heavy rainfall, and changing habitat ranges for plants and animals — expanding some and shrinking others.
Temperatures were warmer than average across most global land and ocean areas during most of the year.
Record high annual temperatures over land surfaces were measured across parts of central Europe, Asia, Australia, southern Africa, Madagascar, New Zealand, North America, and eastern South America.
Record high sea surface temperatures were observed across parts of all oceans, including the North and South Atlantic Ocean, the western Indian Ocean, and areas of northern, central and southwestern Pacific Ocean.
No land or ocean areas were record cold for the year, and the only substantial pocket of cooler-than-average land temperatures was in central North America.
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling.
According to the NOAA 2019 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) is more than twice as great.
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and 9 of the 10 have occurred since 2005.
The year 1998 is the only year from the twentieth century still among the ten warmest years on record.
Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the historical record, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten” window shifts forward in time.
By 2020, models project that global surface temperature will be more than 0.5°C (0.9°F) warmer than the 1986-2005 average, regardless of which carbon dioxide emissions pathway the world follows.
The concept of an average temperature for the entire globe may seem odd.
After all, at this very moment, the highest and lowest temperatures on Earth are likely more than 100°F (55°C) apart.
Temperatures vary from night to day and between seasonal extremes in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
This means that some parts of Earth are quite cold while other parts are downright hot.
To speak of the “average” temperature, then, may seem like nonsense.
end quotes
And actually, it is nonsense.
As to the voice of an expert on that subject, we have this from the noteworthy Dr. H.H. Lamb in his seminal work on the subject of the earth’s climate, to wit:
The lowering of world temperatures from the 1930s and 1940s to some time between 1975–80 and 1985 has been less than the rise over the previous fifty years.
Hence, the twentieth century has been warmer than the previous two centuries.
This is a broad summary statement that is generally true the world over.
However, estimating average temperatures for the whole Earth to something approximating the degree of precision claimed (or, at least, generally implied) by figures now commonly published can surely never be realistic because of the huge ocean spaces — about 70 per cent of the surface of the globe — and the local diversity of soils and drainage, etc. on land, not to mention the error margins to which all sensing methods are liable.
In central England the 1900–93 average temperature is 0.8°C above that which Manley derived from the late seventeenth century (1659–99) and 0.3°C above the figures for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Despite the remarkable warmth in 1989 to 1990 (years which in England were however not significantly warmer than 1948 and 1949), no later decade has so far equalled the average for the 1940s or for the 1930s and 1940s combined.
end quotes
So much for NOAA’s assertion that “Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the historical record, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the “top ten” window shifts forward in time.”
As I say, we are largely forced to have to take the word of NOAA here, because we do not have access to all their supposed data, but for Albany, N.Y, this is what NOAA’s own data has to say, to wit:
All-Time EXTREMES for ALBANY, NY
Daily Temperatures & Pressure: 1874 to present Annual & Monthly Temperatures: 1820 to present Annual & Monthly Precipitation: 1826 to present Snowfall: 1884-85 to present
Wind: 1987-present
NOAA Regional Climate Centers
Updated: October 2019
Temperature
Record Measurement Date(s)
Lowest -28°F January 19, 1971
Highest 104°F July 4, 1911
Low Maximum -8°F Feb 15, 1943 & Dec 20, 1942
High Minimum 81°F July 31, 1917
Coldest Month 9.7°F January 1970
Warmest Month 79.7°F July 1868
Coldest Year 42.7°F 1875
Warmest Year 51.6°F 2012
Shortest Growing Season 113 days May 24 – September 14, 1963
Longest Growing Season 218 days April 8 – November 12, 1883
end quotes
One thing we do not see is each year since 1988 getting warmer, and only one year after 200, 2012, is listed as the warmest year.
As to highest temperature, we need to go back in time over a hundred years to July 4, 1911 when it was 104°F, a temperature not seen in my lifetime if over 70 years, and the growing season in 1883 was longer, not shorter, than the growing season in 1963, when it should have been the opposite way around according to this global warming theory.
And the Warmest Month was 152 years ago in July 1868.
So is this concept of global average temperature meaningless?
I certainly would say so, and at the minimum, it is highly misleading, but what am I saying, of course it is – it was intended to be that way to scare us and make us incapable of thinking to question this horse****.
Paul Plante says
And staying with the concept that to speak of the “global average” temperature is nonsense, except to those in NOAA who are firm believers in the concept, for reasons known only to themselves which they cannot express in intelligent terms that make sense to those of us who actually live in the world their models are attempting to describe, since they are experts and we are not, here is what NOAA has to say about the concept in a NOAA article entitled “Climate Change: Global Temperature” by Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman on January 16, 2020, to wit:
However, the concept of a global average temperature is convenient for detecting and tracking changes in Earth’s energy budget — how much sunlight Earth absorbs minus how much it radiates to space as heat — over time.
end quotes
Which is a very stupid statement indeed given that “temperature” in any given location is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles of a substance, in this case, air, and the higher the temperature of air, the higher is its kinetic energy, and that kinetic energy comes from many sources, so there is no direct comparison between locations, as we can see from this following from the USEPA, to wit:
What is the basis for the urban heat island concept?
Surfaces that were once permeable and moist generally become impermeable and dry.
This development leads to the formation of urban heat islands—the phenomenon whereby urban regions experience warmer temperatures than their rural surroundings.
end quotes
And then we have this from the informative CLIMATE CENTRAL article “Hot and Getting Hotter: Heat Islands Cooking U.S. Cities” published August 20th, 2014, to wit:
Cities are almost always hotter than the surrounding rural area but global warming takes that heat and makes it worse.
But on average across the country cities are even hotter, and have been getting hotter faster than adjacent rural areas.
Our analysis of summer temperatures in 60 of the largest U.S. cities found that:
57 cities had measurable urban heat island effects over the past 10 years.
Single-day urban temperatures in some metro areas were as much as 27°F higher than the surrounding rural areas, and on average across all 60 cities, the maximum single-day temperature difference was 17.5°F.
Cities have many more searing hot days each year.
Since 2004, 12 cities averaged at least 20 more days a year above 90°F than nearby rural areas.
The 60 cities analyzed averaged at least 8 more days over 90°F each summer compared to adjacent rural areas.
In two thirds of the cities analyzed (41 of 60), urbanization and climate change appear to be combining to increase summer heat faster than climate change alone is raising regional temperatures.
In three quarters (45 of 60) of cities examined, urbanized areas are warming faster than adjacent rural locations.
On average across all 60 cities, urban summer temperatures were 2.4°F hotter than rural temperatures.
Urban heat islands are even more intense at night.
Over the past 10 years, average summer overnight temperatures were more than 4°F hotter in cities than surrounding rural areas.
end quotes
And that excess heat in these cities which is generated by the people living there that is causing them to be considerably warmer than their surroundings are then averaged in with the lower temperatures out here in the countryside, which serves to elevate our temperatures to make it seem that yes, the world is getting warmer, when it is the cities that are in fact doing so, which takes us back to the All-Time EXTREMES for ALBANY, NY from the NOAA Regional Climate Centers updated October 2019, to wit:
Earliest 80+ degrees 81°F March 9, 2016
Latest First 80+ degrees 80°F June 15, 1924
Latest 80+ degrees 81°F / 82°F November 2, 1982 & 1950
Least # of Days 80+ in a Year 38 days 1874
Most # of Days 80+ in a Year 99 days 1959
Most Consecutive Days High 80+ 44 days June 28 – August 10, 2018
Earliest 90+ degrees 91°F April 16, 2012
Latest 90+ degrees 90°F October 6, 1900
Earliest Heat Wave / 90+ for 3+ days April 26-28, 1990
Latest Heat Wave / 90+ for 3+ days September 24-26, 2017
Most # of Days 90+ in a Month 19 days July 1955
Least # of Days 90+ in a Year 0 days 1998
Most # of Days 90+ in a Year 32 days 1955
Most Consecutive Days High 90+ 10 days August 27 – September 5, 1953
Most # of Days 100+ in a Year 3 days 1953, 1936, & 1933
Most Consecutive Days High 100+ 3 days July 8-10, 1936
end quotes
As we can clearly see, there, it was hotter in the past in this area than it is now, but if you average in our lower temperatures with the high temperatures of the top 10 cities with the most intense summer urban heat islands (average daily urban-rural temperature differences) over the past 10 years, those being Las Vegas (7.3°F), Albuquerque (5.9°F), Denver (4.9°F), Portland (4.8°F), Louisville (4.8°F), Washington, D.C. (4.7°F), Kansas City (4.6°F), Columbus (4.4°F), Minneapolis (4.3°F), and Seattle (4.1°F), you can jack ours up, even though they have gone down in reality, and by God, you can get yourself a real existential crisis out of it, and get a GREEN NEW DEAL passed in New York as a result, and in politics today, that is the name of the game.
So is the concept of global average temperature nonsense?
Or is it good sense from the standpoint of politics?
Paul Plante says
So, is the whole earth getting warmer as NOAA would have us believe?
Is the world today warmer than it ever has been?
Or is that a real horse**** statement from NOAA intended to confuse us by making us scared that the world is about to end?
For that answer, or to help us determine that answer we need to go back to the All-Time EXTREMES for ALBANY, NY from the NOAA Regional Climate Centers updated October 2019, but before we do, we need to define “Degree Days,” which are defined as the number of degrees by which the average daily temperature is higher than 65°F (cooling degree days) or lower than 65°F (heating degree days), as degree days reflect changes in climate and are used as a proxy for the energy demand for heating or cooling buildings, to wit:
Cooling Degree Days (CDD) January 1st – December 31st / Heating Degree Days (HDD) July 1st – June 30th
Greatest CDD Monthly 383 July 1887
Greatest HDD Monthly 1705 January 1970
Least CDD Year 355 1982
Least HDD Season 5339 2011-12
Greatest CDD Year 996 1959
Greatest HDD Season 7741 1874-75
end quotes
To understand the numbers there before the year, we need to take into consideration as follows:
“Degree-days” are relative measurements of outdoor air temperature used as an index for heating and cooling energy requirements.
Heating degree-days are the number of degrees that the daily average temperature falls below 65° F.
Cooling degree-days are the number of degrees that the daily average temperature rises above 65° F.
The daily average temperature is the mean of the maximum and minimum temperatures in a 24-hour period.
For example, a weather station recording an average daily temperature of 40° F would report 25 heating degree-days for that day (and 0 cooling degree-days).
If a weather station recorded an average daily temperature of 78° F, cooling degree-days for that station would be 13 (and 0 heating degree days).
end quotes
So, first off, given we are looking for when it was the hottest, we are more interested in Cooling Degree-days (CDD), and looking at the chart, we find as follows for Greatest CDD Monthly, and we notice that it was 133 years ago in July 1887, not in the years since 2000, as we are supposed to believe according to NOAA.
And we find the Greatest CDD Year, which would be associated with a hot year, to be 61 years ago in 1959, which I remember as a hot year, having been alive back then when it was hotter than it is now in this area, not in any year since 2000.
As to when the least cooling degree-days occurred, which would indicate a cooler year, that Least CDD Year was 1982.
And while the Least HDD Season was 2011-12, which would indicate a less-cold winter, we do not see a pike or rise in CCD for that year listed, because while it was less cold in the winter, it was also less cold during the rest of the year, which is to say, milder, not hotter.
And I’m using these numbers for Albany because I could find them.
I looked for comparable for Cape Charles, but was unable to locate the same data.
I also asked NOAA for all the sites whose temperature goes into constructing this so-called “global average temperature” so I could check the circumstances of each location to determine why it was so hot, like France, with its 58 nuclear reactors which are turning its rivers into heat sources that are cooking those people over there like frogs in a pot of boiling water, but have received no reply and frankly, do not expect one as I’m considered a heretic at NOAA for daring to question their assumptions, especially here in the Cape Charles Mirror where they can exert no control over what gets stated and published.
jp says
Still using climate gate. They were reviewed on cleared on all charges by a council of there peers.
Paul Plante says
Were they really?
Who would have ever thought it?
And no, personally, I don’t use Climategate for anything, starting with predicting what the weather is going to be today, which here where I am is cold with snow flurries.
Been real windy, too.
Strong winds.
The atmospheric model I helped develop back in 1975 predicted all of this what is happening now, but anybody not a fool could have predicted it just as well, the atmosphere being a thermodynamic engine, afterall, which is what – 9th grade earth science, if not earlier these days?
And on that subject of the earth’s atmosphere being a heat engine, which is why we have wind and weather, again, ninth grade science if not earlier, you probably recall this scientific essay from Comparative Climatology of Terrestrial Planets, Stephen J. Mackwell, Amy A. Simon-Miller, Jerald W. Harder, and Mark A. Bullock (eds.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 610 pp., p.181-191 Pub Date: 2013 DOI: 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816530595-ch008 Bibcode: 2013cctp.book..181S, to wit:
Planetary Atmospheres as Heat Engines
Schubert, G.; Mitchell, J. L.
Abstract
We review the workings of Earth’s atmospheric heat engine and describe the energy and entropy exchanges that occur to support the atmospheric circulation.
end quotes
There’s where I am coming from jp, as an intellectual like yourself would have discerned if you had bothered to read anything I posted instead of trying to pin me with some zany and cock-a-mamie conspiracy theory related to Climategate, as if somehow I had something to do with that mess, when I clearly did not.
Getting back to the real-deal science as opposed to that horse**** the Climategate crowd were accused of peddling, until their peers came to their rescue and said, “GO HOME, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, PEOPLE,” and so they did, end of that sorry story, we have:
The heat absorbed by the atmosphere increases its internal and gravitational potential energies.
end quotes
That is why we are going to have killer winds, jp.
How well is the roof of your house held on?
Getting back to the science:
A very small percentage of potential energy is converted into kinetic energy to maintain the circulation against dissipation, which irreversibly converts it to internal energy.
The thermodynamic efficiency of the atmospheric heat engine can be defined as the fraction of the radiative imbalance at the surface converted to the kinetic energy of the motions.
This is equivalent to the ratio of the frictional energy dissipation to the convective heat flux.
The rate of dissipation of atmospheric kinetic energy is one of the main quantities entering the energy budgets of these planetary atmospheres.
For Earth, frictional dissipation in rainfall is comparable to the turbulent dissipation of kinetic energy.
The net radiative entropy flux of a planet is negative because atmospheres absorb solar radiation at a higher temperature than the temperature at which they reemit an equal amount of longwave radiation to space.
If in a state of statistical equilibrium, the entropy of an atmosphere is constant; the radiative entropy loss must be balanced by the entropy production associated with thermally direct heat transports, frictional dissipation, and other processes.
If estimates of entropy production through thermally direct heat transports and other processes can be obtained and combined with estimates of the temperature at which frictional or turbulent dissipation occurs, then the rate at which frictional dissipation generates heat can be constrained.
If frictional dissipation in Earth’s atmosphere occurs between the temperatures of 250 K and 288 K, the rate must be less than 7.3-8.4 W m-2.
This upper bound is much larger than observationally based estimates of the rate of frictional dissipation because other sources of entropy production are difficult to evaluate and are not taken into account.
end quotes
Which is why I personally do not use Climategate for anything I am doing, because truthfully, who really needs it?
And for what?
jp, you seem intelligent – can you answer that for us?