Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

[dphantom]

An interesting article regarding the new weather monitoring network NOAA put in place in 2005. These stations are set up so as to avoid having to manipulate/correct data for various elements that may throw off accurate reading such as the urban hot spot.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

So it would be interesting if we could extend a similar type of network worldwide and see if the trend of cooling in the US is true for other parts of the world.

 

[Jaskalas]

Higher quality data is always a benefit, it's just a shame that it's only a ~10 year record.
Using this to calibrate the lower quality data is a place to start. We get to witness the honesty of all those adjustments to the older record.

 

[nehalem256]

Obviously the NOAA is in the pockets of the Koch Brothers

 

[networkman]

Nice find there, dphantom!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm now surprised to see that wildfires, droughts and all those "extreme weather events" we've seen lately are actually the result of cooler temperatures! Oh snap!

 

[glenn1]

So this leads an honest question for those who suppport carbon taxes and such. Presuming this cooling is real, is that a good, bad, or neutral thing from your POV?

 

[nehalem256]

I'm now surprised to see that wildfires, droughts and all those "extreme weather events" we've seen lately are actually the result of cooler temperatures! Oh snap!

The "extreme weather events" were the result of "climate change".

An the new data clearly shows that the climate is changing now doesn't it

 

[dphantom]

So this leads an honest question for those who suppport carbon taxes and such. Presuming this cooling is real, is that a good, bad, or neutral thing from your POV?

It seems to me that, generally, market forces are working to reduce US carbon emission. So artificial taxes to force a certain outcome are superfluous and may in fact be more damaging than helpful. The wealth transfer necessary to support poorer citizens who see their energy bills rise is one problem I see.

 

[unokitty]

Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year

UN computer models say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing

It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979...

Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations.

But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.

Scientific observations don't agree with climate change computer models?

Who da thunk it?

Uno

 

[desy]

Wrong
Between the two poles total is decreasing
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...-and-the-antarctic-sea-ice-misrepresentation/

the Arctic sea ice is losing mass/volume 10 times faster than the Antarctic sea ice is gaining mass/volume. Also the impact on our albedo of decreased Arctic sea ice in the NH summer is very different to the impact of increased Antarctic sea ice in the SH winter.

One idea is that the melting of Antarctic ice sheets is adding cold, fresh water to the Antarctic ocean (Bintanja et al. 2013). Fresh water freezes more easily than salt water, and so this is one explanation for the increased Antarctic sea ice extent. There is also a chance that it is just natural variability (Swart & Fyfe 2013) but even if true, this doesn’t mean that it somehow compensates for reduction in Arctic sea ice

Secondly the US doesn't represent the globe
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-06-14-anomaltempjune142014.jpg

 

[shira]

People DO realize, don't they, that the number of USCRN stations has been slowly growing over time? And people also know that comparing the "mean" temperature over time is completely invalid if the mean is based on (say) 12 stations in 2004 and 126 stations in 2014? People in this thread DO realize that, don't they?

For example, if the small number of stations (12) that existed in 2002 are followed over time, one sees:

http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2012/08/uscrnusrcrn-wuwt-has-been-crowing-this.html

(Check out the third plot - .44 degree INCREASE per decade). Yet Watt is showing a DECREASE (see last plot)? Hmmm.

He (Watt] has invalidly compared USCRN with the older ghcn network using absolute values (does not get rid of any offsets between the data sets).

Maybe people should be a little more skeptical when they read the so-called analysis of a well-known climate-change denier.

 

[dphantom]

Secondly the US doesn't represent the globe

I never said it did and the data is from 2005 to present, not just the one year your pic showed.

In fact, I was quite explicit in wondering what would the trend look like if we had "clean" data from all over the globe.

 

[shira]

An interesting article regarding the new weather monitoring network NOAA put in place in 2005. These stations are set up so as to avoid having to manipulate/correct data for various elements that may throw off accurate reading such as the urban hot spot.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

So it would be interesting if we could extend a similar type of network worldwide and see if the trend of cooling in the US is true for other parts of the world.

The title of your thread should be: Anthony Watt claims in blog that Government data shows decade-long cooling.

Edit: And accurately show the link to the original blog:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...face-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/

 

[dphantom]

The title of your thread should be: Anthony Watt claims in blog that Government data shows decade-long cooling.

Edit: And accurately show the link to the original blog:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/...face-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/

I linked to a valid Forbes news article. If the data is invalid, show such. I don't care about personalities, just the data. If this Watt guy is wrong, then show it.

 

[artvscommerce]

I linked to a valid Forbes news article. If the data is invalid, show such. I don't care about personalities, just the data. If this Watt guy is wrong, then show it.

It looks like that's already been clearly demonstrated in this thread.

 

[shira]

I linked to a valid Forbes news article. If the data is invalid, show such. I don't care about personalities, just the data. If this Watt guy is wrong, then show it.

Your thread links to a Forbes Opinion piece that's based directly on a blog by Anthony Watts. Watts' blog is NOT a peer-reviewed paper analyzing the USCRN temperature record; it's an amateur's attempt to do math. Your thread title and post should have made that clear.

When you find a peer-reviewed paper making the same claim, be sure to let us know.

 

[nehalem256]

People DO realize, don't they, that the number of USCRN stations has been slowly growing over time? And people also know that comparing the "mean" temperature over time is completely invalid if the mean is based on (say) 12 stations in 2004 and 126 stations in 2014? People in this thread DO realize that, don't they?

For example, if the small number of stations (12) that existed in 2002 are followed over time, one sees:

http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2012/08/uscrnusrcrn-wuwt-has-been-crowing-this.html

(Check out the third plot - .44 degree INCREASE per decade). Yet Watt is showing a DECREASE (see last plot)? Hmmm.



Maybe people should be a little more skeptical when they read the so-called analysis of a well-known climate-change denier.

How exactly can your blogpost from 2012 dispute numbers from 2014?

 

[werepossum]

People DO realize, don't they, that the number of USCRN stations has been slowly growing over time? And people also know that comparing the "mean" temperature over time is completely invalid if the mean is based on (say) 12 stations in 2004 and 126 stations in 2014? People in this thread DO realize that, don't they?

For example, if the small number of stations (12) that existed in 2002 are followed over time, one sees:

http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2012/08/uscrnusrcrn-wuwt-has-been-crowing-this.html

(Check out the third plot - .44 degree INCREASE per decade). Yet Watt is showing a DECREASE (see last plot)? Hmmm.

Maybe people should be a little more skeptical when they read the so-called analysis of a well-known climate-change denier.

Um, no. Watts is pointing out that NOAA is showing a decrease. I mean, before they apply their special sauce (i.e. Hansonization of the data) to show that the decrease is actually an increase.

NOAA has also reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record. http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

When one's results depend on applying the "Hanson factor" as well as retroactively lowering past temperature records as needed, at some point one must hit the wall. I suspect that NOAA is at that point and is no longer able to hide its manipulation of the data to support the party line, although it is still giving it the old college try. As Watts points out from time to time, "The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world." If making the present seem unusually hot requires reducing past temperature records, that isn't even a stumbling block, let alone an insurmountable obstacle. NASA, even absent Hanson, also seems to be carrying on with the important work of manufacturing a climate crisis. However, the more raw data is available to the public, the more obvious is the manipulation and the less trust is vested in these government agencies.

 

[Cozarkian]

People DO realize, don't they, that the number of USCRN stations has been slowly growing over time? And people also know that comparing the "mean" temperature over time is completely invalid if the mean is based on (say) 12 stations in 2004 and 126 stations in 2014? People in this thread DO realize that, don't they?

For example, if the small number of stations (12) that existed in 2002 are followed over time, one sees:

http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2012/08/uscrnusrcrn-wuwt-has-been-crowing-this.html

(Check out the third plot - .44 degree INCREASE per decade). Yet Watt is showing a DECREASE (see last plot)? Hmmm.



Maybe people should be a little more skeptical when they read the so-called analysis of a well-known climate-change denier.

One notable difference in the data you linked is that it stops in 2012, which was a peak point in the OP's data. If your post was updated with the 2013 and 2014 data, you may find the warming trend would lessen or even reverse.

Further, while it is undoubtedly better to compare 126 stations to 126 stations, it is not necessarily better to compare 12 stations to 12 stations, as the reduction in sample size makes the data for less useful as a measurement for extrapolation to the entire U.S.

 

[desy]

Article by "James Taylor — a professional denial propagandist. He not a climate scientist or even a scientist in any way. He’s a lawyer paid by the Heartland Institute to write climate change denial propaganda."
When pushed for an explanation–since Taylor holds no degree in science–he misrepresents himself:


“I successfully completed Ivy League atmospheric science courses, so I’m a scientist by training.”

Who’d would’ve thought? Apparently if we all want to be scientists, we just need to take a course or two in science!

That means there must be thousands, perhaps millions of people in this country who qualify as scientists in James Taylor’s world. Unless, of course, you have to take your science classes at the Ivy Leagues–I’ll follow up with Taylor about that and let you know what he thinks.


BTW the image ' current btw shows the US markedly cooler than the rest of the world at that period of time which was the only point I was trying to make

 

[glenn1]

Article by "James Taylor — a professional denial propagandist. He not a climate scientist or even a scientist in any way. He’s a lawyer paid by the Heartland Institute to write climate change denial propaganda."
When pushed for an explanation–since Taylor holds no degree in science–he misrepresents himself:


“I successfully completed Ivy League atmospheric science courses, so I’m a scientist by training.”

Who’d would’ve thought? Apparently if we all want to be scientists, we just need to take a course or two in science!

That means there must be thousands, perhaps millions of people in this country who qualify as scientists in James Taylor’s world. Unless, of course, you have to take your science classes at the Ivy Leagues–I’ll follow up with Taylor about that and let you know what he thinks.

Now that you've impeached the source, could you take a crack at the question I posed earlier? Just assume for sake of argument that what the "professional denial propagandist" said about cooling was true, even if accidentally on the "broken clock = 2x/day" principle.

So this leads an honest question for those who suppport carbon taxes and such. Presuming this cooling is real, is that a good, bad, or neutral thing from your POV?

 

[shira]

Um, no. Watts is pointing out that NOAA is showing a decrease. I mean, before they apply their special sauce (i.e. Hansonization of the data) to show that the decrease is actually an increase.

NOAA has also reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record. http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

When one's results depend on applying the "Hanson factor" as well as retroactively lowering past temperature records as needed, at some point one must hit the wall. I suspect that NOAA is at that point and is no longer able to hide its manipulation of the data to support the party line, although it is still giving it the old college try. As Watts points out from time to time, "The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world." If making the present seem unusually hot requires reducing past temperature records, that isn't even a stumbling block, let alone an insurmountable obstacle. NASA, even absent Hanson, also seems to be carrying on with the important work of manufacturing a climate crisis. However, the more raw data is available to the public, the more obvious is the manipulation and the less trust is vested in these government agencies.

No, Watts is doing his own calculations, and then claiming that the data shows a decrease in mean temperature over the past 10 years. And has been pointed out in a previous post of mine, his calculations are erroneous.

With regard to adjusting data: Naturally, it's not possible that a better understanding of sources of errors in data might be identified and corrected over time. Just like - years after the fact - data on the U.S. economy is never tweaked by federal agencies as more information becomes available. Clearly, any modifications to data must have a nefarious political purpose.

And with respect to your stupid point about the hottest month: Please note that the temperature record has continued to be modified. Right now, the difference in the mean temperature for July 1936 (76.80 degrees) and July 2012 (76.77 degrees) is so small that it's entirely possible that the relative rankings of the two might "flip" again. But, according to Anthony Watts, any such flip must be announced with a fanfare and publicity; otherwise, it's proof that there's fraud afoot.

Edit: And just think about the absurdity of your point about which month was the hottest on record: If NOAA were playing political games with the numbers, why on earth would they "apply special sauce" and reduce July, 2012 to second place? Clearly, they'd dry-lab all data and make all new data the hottest and all old data the coolest. But they tweaked the data and made July, 1936 the hottest! And that proves they're playing a political game with the data? Even you must realize how twisted into a pretzel a mind must be to draw that conclusion.

 

[jackstar7]

My issue is pollution, so I still favor carbon credits/taxes/etc.

A cooler planet isn't going to make it easier for asthmatics to breathe.

 

[desy]

The question was for those who support Carbon taxes, I don't
I acknowledge AGW and far as the 'science' by Watts'

Education

Watts attended Purdue University from 1975 to 1982 but left without graduating.[2] A number of direct queries to Watts to find out if he graduated from college were rebuffed,[3] but a direct query to Purdue revealed that he did not obtain a degree from the university.[2]

Career

Watts began his broadcasting career, in 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana.[4]

Watts still works as a weatherman at KPAY 1290 AM radio in Chico, California.

Political advocacy

Watts is involved with the Butte County Republican Party, providing technical assistance and maintaining the website and domain registration.[5],[6]

Credentials

Credentials held

Watts held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[7] with a status of "retired".[8]

Credentials not held

Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[9], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[10], and Watts posesses neither certification.[11],[12]

There will be rebuttal arguments soon enough from legitimate sources which I will read with greater confidence

 

[OutHouse]

This data doesn't fit with left wing ideology, so the data must be wrong.