US cooled 0.4 degrees in the last 10 years?

[Sundancefisher]

Warming...the following may be conscrued as "evil denier propaganda". If you are believer...do not read. Do not look at the data yourself. Think of anything else.

Wait. Seriously? Is this true? Is this what the data is saying?

But I thought all the nasty climate problems in the US was because of Global Warming...according to the Obama Administration.

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


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


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.

Diagram of weather stations
Source: National Climatic Data Center, NOAA

First, global warming is not so dramatic and uniform as alarmists claim. For example, prominent alarmist James Hansen claimed in 2010, “Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup … effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales.” The word “monotonic” means, according to Merriam-Webster Online, “having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase.” Well, either temperatures are decreasing by 0.4 degrees Celsius every decade or they are not monotonic.

Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also.

Third, the USCRN data debunk claims that rising U.S. temperatures caused wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events during the past year. The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our planet modestly warms. But even ignoring such objective data, it is difficult to claim global warming is causing recent U.S. droughts and wildfires when U.S. temperatures are a full 0.4 degrees Celsius colder than they were in 2005.

Even more importantly than the facts above, the USCRN provides the promise of reliable nationwide temperature data for years to come. No longer will global warming alarmists be able to hide behind thinly veiled excuses to doctor the U.S. temperature record. Now, thanks to the USCRN, the data are what the data are.

Expect global warming alarmists, now and for the foreseeable future, to howl in desperation claiming the USCRN temperature data are irrelevant.

Of course, to global warming alarmists, all real-world data are irrelevant.

[Sundancefisher]

Interestingly enough...the Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) says so.

However it has just come to light that Contributed (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract) papers can bypass normal reviews and get special reviews.

Nature of scientific publishing...quick process (http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-publishing-the-inside-track-1.15424)
demonstrates how peer review becomes...my friend reviews mine...I review theirs process.

In April, the US National Academy of Sciences elected 105 new members to its ranks. Academy membership is one the most prestigious honours for a scientist, and it comes with a tangible perk: members can submit up to four papers per year to the body's high-profile journal, the venerable Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), through the 'contributed' publication track. This unusual process allows authors to choose who will review their paper and how to respond to those reviewers' comments.

Sure would be nice to have some real peer reviewed material open to "deniers". Given publication is the window to mass marketing in social media...there is clearly a disadvantage now evident both for funding of deniers as well as publications.

Gezz...even the media is now refusing a contrary opinion.

Talk about climate censorship to drive an agenda.

BBC to deny deniers comments (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/rasmussen-poll-63-say-the-debate-about-global-warming-is-not-over-60-pan-bbcs-decision-to-exclude-skeptics/)

The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations. But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics. Only 19% favor such a ban, while slightly more (21%) are undecided.

But then 42% believe the media already makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is. Twenty percent (20%) say the media makes global warming appear better than it really is, while 22% say they present an accurate picture. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

[bison]

Dude, let it go, ain't that horse dead enough!

[recce43]

Dude, let it go, ain't that horse dead enough!

x2000

[Ken07AOVette]

oh no


the world is coming to an end :rolleye2:

[Redfrog]

Bodo is much cooler since I moved here.:sHa_shakeshout:

[recce43]

Bodo is much cooler since I moved here.:sHa_shakeshout:

I thought it would be global warming there with all your hot air just kidding

[Sundancefisher]

Dude, let it go, ain't that horse dead enough!

There is lots of hot air on the subject but I do find it interesting. There is lots of media attention and we are spending $1 Billion + a day worldwide on this.

I would suggest either contribute or don't read. If nobody reads...nobody contributes...your problem solved.

Your desire and need to derail by telling the OP to do what you want to be posted does not serve a purpose.

There must be lots of other threads you care nothing about. Do you post such things to all or are you just hating the deniers? :thinking-006:

Some may not realize how much they are becoming impacted indirectly with the fear of global warming.

[BeeGuy]

This should get the same hammer that World Watcher and his thread got.

:)




:thinking-006:

[TomCanuck]

This should get the same hammer that World Watcher and his thread got.

:)
...
:thinking-006:

Meh, I'd rather ignore threads I don't find interesting, than have them censored.

Guess I'm not a Liberal, as that is their SOP.

[Sundancefisher]

Meh, I'd rather ignore threads I don't find interesting, than have them censored.

Guess I'm not a Liberal, as that is their SOP.

exactly.

Better to capture interesting information and keep threads civil.

In case no one noticed the link...no one cares about a topic...then no one opens the threads and no one responds and threads fall out of vision.

Simple yet effective self policing of what is interesting to any given subset of the forum.

What seems to take things in a wrong direction is certain people trying to dictate what topics should have a fun debate associated with them and which should not.

Again it comes down to...rather than attack a post or poster...just leave it be to fade away. It seems failure to understand what constitutes an egregious derail is the issue.

In the end...this is interesting as it shows cooling over 10 years in the US with NOAA data. At the same time Obama is trying to sell global warming in the US based upon increased storms etc.

The politics behind this is a climate phenonmenon.

[bison]

There is lots of hot air on the subject but I do find it interesting. There is lots of media attention and we are spending $1 Billion + a day worldwide on this.

I would suggest either contribute or don't read. If nobody reads...nobody contributes...your problem solved.

Your desire and need to derail by telling the OP to do what you want to be posted does not serve a purpose.

There must be lots of other threads you care nothing about. Do you post such things to all or are you just hating the deniers? :thinking-006:

Some may not realize how much they are becoming impacted indirectly with the fear of global warming.
I did contribute!,..but apparently it was not what you wanted to hear :sad0020: :sign0013:

[Full Curl Earl]

Resource company land buying money got you working again?
Lets keep this venue open, it's padding the "other side" believers with this dug up propaganda!

[dantonsen]

both polarizing positions are nieve.

To deny it outright or preach armegeddon microwave death is silly and distracts from real problems like water, soil and air pollution.

Legislation and technology make our environment much more habitable for us and our four legged/finned friends/tastey meals.

Legislation and technology have bred lucrative industries while padding polluters bottom lines with more profits on reduced emmissions.

[FreeLantz]

The sky is falling the sky is falling!!

Over and over and over and over with you man. Its getting shrill.

[Sundancefisher]

The sky is falling the sky is falling!!

Over and over and over and over with you man. Its getting shrill.

Actually... I am saying the sky is not falling...the sky is not falling. Or in other words...we are not in trouble and let's spend money smartly and not stupidly. Helping people is noble. Make work projects are a waste.

But oh well. Eventually the message will be understood. :thinking-006:

[FreeLantz]

Actually... I am saying the sky is not falling...the sky is not falling. Or in other words...we are not in trouble and let's spend money smartly and not stupidly. Helping people is noble. Make work projects are a waste.

But oh well. Eventually the message will be understood. :thinking-006:

You are ridiculous. Get a clue buddy.

[Sundancefisher]

You are ridiculous. Get a clue buddy.

If you didn't grasp it...it will always elude you.

It is unfortunate you can't post like a reasonable adult.

Back on topic.

The US has been cooling for 10 years...not warming. Globally their has been no warming in 18 years. Global warming scientists get to green light each other's studies for public dissemination.

Interesting world we love in whole spending $1 billion a year on a non issue eh.

[Sundancefisher]

Temperatures have stopped rising due to natural cycles and something unknown.

This has been stumping scientists in the field and they have been scrambling to say that warming has not stopped permanently...just stalled. Time will tell. However the scientific community consensus now has agreed that the hiatus has occurred. They are now adding past hiatus's into the standard graph.

They now acknowledge a normal drop...yet explain a downturn as unknown why. The science on climate change can not be a consensus...because they don't have enough information to make a high probability prediction. They can't explain the current data.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140911092905.htm

A hiatus in global warming ongoing since 2001 is due to a combination of a natural cooling phase, known as multidecadal variability (MDV) and a downturn of the secular warming trend. The exact causes of the latter, unique in the entire observational record going back to 1850, are still to be identified, according to an article by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC).

The earth hasn't warmed at the same pace during the 20th century. The noticeable temperature increases during some periods interspersed with fairly stable or decreasing levels during others have been explained as a combination of secular global warming (likely humanmade) and natural climate variability. We are currently, in the early 21st century, experiencing a hiatus period, during which surface temperatures have not risen at the same rate as higher atmospheric radiative forcing.

JRC scientists analysed surface temperature data records -- which began in 1850 -- to separate natural variations from secular (i.e., long-term) trends. They identified three hiatus periods (1878-1907, 1945-1969 and 2001 to date), during which global warming slowed down. These hiatus periods coincide with natural cooling phases -- the multidecadal variability (MDV), most likely caused by natural oceanic oscillations. The scientists therefore conclude that the MDV is the main cause of these hiatus periods during which global warming decelerated.

However, they found that the current hiatus period is, for the first time, particularly strongly influenced by changes in the secular trend, which shows a strong acceleration from 1992-2001 and a deceleration from 2002 to 2013.Such rapid and strong fluctuations in the secular warming rate are unprecedented.

This unique fluctuation in the recent secular warming rate could have several causes, such as recent changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean, the accelerated melting of Arctic ice, changes in the deep ocean heat storage or the increasing content of aerosols in the stratosphere. The authors recommend further scientific investigation of the causes and consequences of this change, in order to address whether the global climate sensitivity has recently changed. Such research is crucial to understanding current climate conditions and creating plausible scenarios of future climate evolution.

[dantonsen]

The likes of chevron and exxon are listing climate change as threats to business and are actively working to reduce emmissions.... Doing it later just costs more

These types of companies are starting to track energy intensity and working to mitigate excess consumption going into processing.

Mind you 80% of the reason for using less energy is just common sense and more profit but it does have the environmental benefit too.

More profit and cleaner environment.

Industry is on the intensity/overall reduction idea... most of the public is too, just a few nieve groups dispersed about still sucking in the sand with their heads buried

[Sundancefisher]

The likes of chevron and exxon are listing climate change as threats to business and are actively working to reduce emmissions.... Doing it later just costs more

These types of companies are starting to track energy intensity and working to mitigate excess consumption going into processing.

Mind you 80% of the reason for using less energy is just common sense and more profit but it does have the environmental benefit too.

More profit and cleaner environment.

Industry is on the intensity/overall reduction idea... most of the public is too, just a few nieve groups dispersed about still sucking in the sand with their heads buried

Actually. It appears some are lost and quagmired in the wrong issue. Fixing pollution is great. Stopping CO2...not proven.

Just like the scientists in the article noted... they don't have a clue why lots of CO2 has not increased temps in the last 17 years. It is acknowledged that the supposed link to CO2 and temperature does not appear to be there. No one knows why. It is just a matter of time before the winds shift again. The article showed a graph and the fact that temps rise and fall. We are in a falling pattern. Question is how much are we going to fall.

Businesses are smart. They are agile and move with the changing mood of consumers. You would not expect anything less. However...ask any geologist what they think of the climate record of the past 1,000,000 years and you will get the same thing. A history of warm periods and cold periods. Glaciers, deserts, oceans, floods, droughts and everything else in between.

Now. Scientists say temps are not rising. Are you sticking with the current data or still living 17 years ago with your head in the sand.

Time will tell what temperatures do. In the mean while there are real issues to be concerned about. Wonder how that solar flare is going to fare?