Official Government Data Shows U.S. Cooling at a Rate of 8.8 deg F / Century

Posted: October 12, 2010 in global warming fraud, global warming hoax
Tags: , ,

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
– Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007)–From the hacked emails of the East Anglia Climate Research Center

The headlines are on the way.  You can bet that come the end of the year the media will be touting 2010 as one of the warmest years on record.  Of course, the implication will be that it is a sign of global warming.  We are all going to die!  Relax.  In the big scheme of things, one single year means nothing.

I am not very confident in temperature measurements coming from other parts of the globe and I certainly don’t have access to the raw data so I am not equipped to comment on such data.  However, US temperature data is abundant, more reliable and freely accessible.  I say “more reliable” with a certain degree of hesitation because it is artificially skewed to the warm side—but that will be the subject of another essay.  Anyway, I took data directly from the NOAA archives , ending with the most recent 12 months (Oct. 2009-Sept.2010) for the period from 1998 to the present in 12 month blocks.  I chose 1998 because that year is often touted as the warmest year on record (it was not).  Word has been circulating that global warming all but ceased since that year and what I discovered seems to confirm the cooling trend. 

For the U. S., temperatures since 1998 have been in a downward trend.  It is cooling at the rate of 8.8 deg F per century!  Of course this is just the current trend.  Only a climate fool would suggest that a warming one will not follow some day.  The point is that over this 12 year time span there has been no warming within the US.  In fact, the opposite is true.  What makes this important is that none of the IPCC climate models predicted this.  It was not predicted in their 1997 report, their 2001 report, or even acknowledged in their 2007 report.

The leaked emails from East Anglia last year suggest that the climate modelers are in agreement about global conditions being very similar to what we are seeing in the US.  This is all very embarrassing for the AGW people who would love the last 12 years to fit nicely into their exponential graph.  It is funny how empirical data can mess up a hypothesis.

 Continental U.S. Temperatures Cooling

Most Recent 12-Month Period (Oct – Sep) 1998 – 2010 Trend = -0.88 deg F / decade (-8.8 deg F / century)

 

Each red line in the graph represents a 12 month period ending in September of the related year.  The black horizontal line represents the average temperature over this time period.  The green line is the statistical trend.  Please be aware that a trend is not a prediction—this trend can and will change.  Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

Jim Hatem

thetruthpeddler@yahoo.com

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Altair Maine says:

    Somebody needs to play your foil on this blog, right?

    This graph and the temperature trend that it depicts is the kind of claim that makes me curious. So I went to the website you linked, poked around, and messed with their time series plotting, until I could duplicate your graph exactly. But I’m not convinced, to wit:

    1) You can only find this “trend” by very careful cropping. Zoom out a little and the data looks extraordinarily different – namely, you see a precipitous rise in temperature. They have good data since the beginning of the 20th century. Selective cropping of the available data to arrive at the conclusion you want is sketchy.

    2) You’re misrepresenting the opposing argument to make people look stupid who are not. The claim is that 1998 was the warmest GLOBAL year on record. A graph of US temperatures is not a rebuttal to this claim. The US constitutes about 2% of the Earth’s total area.

    3) The long-term trend in the US, over a more meaningful time interval, IS one of considerable warming. But perhaps that’s not very meaningful – the United States is, after all, only 2% of the Earth’s area. And an increase in average global temperature might well correspond to localized decreases. Climate is a noisy system, both temporally and geographically. So even if we don’t trust many sources of global temperature records from outside of the United States, it’s probably imperative that we find at least a few reliable ones and include those in any kind of meaningful assessment.

    Trenberth is also being egregiously misrepresented by being quoted out of context. He’s doing some finicky accounting on the Earth’s energy budget, and is lamenting the lack of data to verify or disprove a hypothesis. Namely, that a certain amount of thermal energy is heating the lower levels of the oceans.

    • Altair, Altair, Altair!

      1.) Why would I zoom out when it was my intent to show what the climate has been doing since the big 1997-78 El Nino event. I thought I made it pretty clear in my essay that this was about RECENT trends in the U.S. Why would you bring up figures a century back? Is this your attempt at obfuscation? But since YOU brought it up……..You claim they have good data back a century. Really? Are all the same weather stations reporting from that period? Have there been any local changes around those weather stations, like urbanization, for instance? Have the weather stations been moved or altered in any way? Are the same instruments in these weather stations for this entire period? Have the same people been reading and recording these temperatures over the last 100 years? Are the thermometers at all these weather stations the same? Have they been calibrated against each other? Are the thermometers in use since 1998 the same ones used in 1910? I think you get the point. You cannot mix data sets to demonstrate a trend (at least not honestly and at least not without notifying the audience). By my looking at the data from the most recent 12 years I can be a lot more confident that not much has changed in the collecting of data in this time interval.
      I certainly wouldn’t make the bold statement that we see “a precipitous rise in temperature” over the last century given all these uncertainties. And I don’t know (even assuming that all is well with the data collection) if a 0.5-0.7 deg C temperature rise over the last century is precipitous. Is it normal fluctuation? How do we know? We can’t!

      2. Tell me you really didn’t say that. I think I am misrepresenting what the global warming people are saying to make them look stupid? I think I made it pretty clear in my essay that I was only talking about U.S. data. I also made it clear that I was only talking about U.S. data because that is all I have access to. What’s more, even the major authors of the IPCC reports have gone on record as admitting that there has been no significant rise in GLOBAL temperatures since 1998. I have hundreds of references to back this up. I don’t know if 1998 actually was the warmest year on record. Contrary to rebutting this claim I actually conceded the point and thus looked at what temperatures have done since then–using data available to me. You should be aware however, that NASA did issue a press release (though not widely disseminated) that they may have made a mistake about 1998–that 1934 was actually a little warmer. So? Your claim that I am trying to make these people look stupid is, well, stupid. I think you have things mixed up and backwards. In fact, I think they are pretty smart because they have figured out a way to make a living perpetuating this scam. Furthermore, it is those two Nobel Prize winning global warming high-priests (an economist and a divinity school dropout) who have compared scientists skeptical of their claims to “Flat Earthers”.

      3.) The long term trend in the U.S. is one of “considerable” warming? Really? How long term? Past 100 years? How convenient of you to chose that interval. Is that long term? How about over the last 1000 years, going back to the Medieval Warm Period? There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that the US is colder today than it was during that period. How about we go back 115,000 years ago, to the Eemian interglacial? Conditions in the US during THE CURRENT interglacial are colder than they were during the Eemian. One can cherry pick time intervals as they see fit. I chose to look at the trend for the last 12 years. There was no deception. I made it clear what I was reporting on. The US may be 2% of the surface area of earth but do you think our trends stop at the border? What is happening in Mexico? Do you know? Does anyone? I have already pointed out that even the global warming people acknowledge no significant GLOBAL increase in temperatures over the last 12 years or so.
      Trenberth is NOT being misrepresented in my quotation. He is lamenting the FACT that the oceans have cooled in recent years and is wondering where the heat must have gone since his MODELS say it should have led to an increase in tropospheric temperatures–but he (or anyone else) can’t find it! If anything, I think I am being kind. He would love for the data to fit his model. He should, instead, be adjusting his model.

    • E=MC2 says:

      Altair, Jim’s rebuttal suggests to me that you really didn’t read his article.

  2. the HANman says:

    Whoa. Maine just got owned!

  3. johnathan_is_here says:

    This is a veryy interesting article. Hatem, you have gradually turned my entire views around on this subject. I think you set poor Mr. Maine up here. Oh well, he fell for your bait.

  4. Hernan_G says:

    One thing I learned as a student of Mr. Hatem more than a decade ago is that the S.O.B is usually right about things and only a fool would bat wits with him. I have been following these blogs for a few weeks now and it has brought back so many memories of the healthy skepticism that was a hallmark of his views ON EVERYTHING. More than anything else, I learned from this man to always question, question, question. I admit I have grown complacent with issues such as global warming but I now see the issue for what it really is–a means of control through fees and taxation. I am a materials engineer for a large aerospace comapany and have been printing out these blogs and passing them on to colleagues. Although none of us are specialists in climate science we are all astute enough to recognize a scientific whitewash when we see one. As I have gone off on my own to research the subject I am convinced that we will see this fragile house of cards come tumbling down in the near future. As usuall, Hatem will be able to shake his head, as only he can, and say: “see, I told you.”

  5. Altair Maine says:

    Owned? Bah! Hardly! Some of us are still teaching a full day, and it’s tough to find the time to respond at length. 🙂

    Jim, I wouldn’t claim that the US data is flawless. But I was utilizing the data set that YOU cited as being more reliable than global records. There are going to be problems with ANY kind of time series data for a long list of reasons, and I wouldn’t expect the US numbers to be perfect. But you brought them up as the basis for the argument, and I responded in kind rather than introduce all sorts of extraneous data sets into the argument. Perhaps things are sketchy if you go back to the beginning of the 20th century – but what about the 90s? Including a measly extra decade or two doesn’t involve dramatically different data collection techniques, but it sure yields a far different trendline.

    If you want to cite the data from the NOAA archives, I’m going to look at all the data they have available. It may not all be perfect, but what dataset is? Choosing a cutoff of 1998 arbitrarily is disingenuous.

    Yet this is not the crux of the problem. There are other climate signals with a good deal of variability and much larger amplitude than global warming over small time intervals. Most notably, the El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation has a huge impact on global temperature and changes weather worldwide fairly radically. It is a roughly decadal signal, and any time you look at an interval that is just 10 or 20 years long, the temperature changes will be dominated by ENSO. This is true for warming decades as well – you simply have to take a longer view and examine a larger geographical area to find a meaningful global signal.

    • Altair, you seem to have missed my whole point. I did not chose a starting point of 1998 arbitrarily. For a few years the global warming community has been in something of a tizzy because they have had to admit there has been no GLOBAL warming since 1998. I do not have access to global data sets but I do have access to US temperature data. I ran the numbers for the US for the very years that the global warming people have been mentioning. In fact, a few weeks back even you said you weren’t convinced that there really has been any cooling since 1998. Your high priests say it is so. All I did is confirm this for the U.S. Why the need to accuse me of being arbitrary and disingenuous? Why do you keep bringing up previous years? Previous years were not the subject of my essay. There is a problem with going back even another 6 years or so because of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992. It lowered temperatures worldwide for a whole year. In the 1980s there was a massive change in the US in temperature collection methodology and technology, AND a drastic reduction in the number of reporting sites. And why do you not address the reason these clowns are all upset, i.e., their 1994, 1997, or 2004 predictions never anticipated this cooling trend? Doesn’t that make you wonder how valid are their computer models? They couldn’t predict the climate for the next year yet want to be taken seriously about projections for 100 years into the future!

      I am making no claims about trends over any other time period other than the last 12 years. That’s it! Got it? If the AGW people say that temps have risen 0.5-0.7 C over the last century then I guess you will just have to take them at their word (Ha ha–I made a funny). If they say this temp rise is because of man made CO2 emissions then that is not just the reporting of faulty and manipulated data–that is making wild claims for which there is no evidence. They don’t even argue that this entire half degree or so is due to humans. They readily admit that some is due to natural causes. So what fraction of this tiny fraction are we supposed to feel guilty about and get all worked up over?

      Oh sorry about the XKCD. Have to delete links because of track back traffic and spammers hitching a ride. It’s funny though. I will use it in the future.

  6. jendo321 says:

    Mr. Hatem, your debating skills are awesome.

  7. keylyme says:

    Maine, you got owned AGAIN. Give it up. The writing is on the wall and I think in a few years everyone is going to be laughing at the people who perpetuated this global warming fraud. Some of them belong in jail.

  8. sammisen says:

    This is some fine detective work. Kudos to you, sir.

  9. jackofjacks says:

    I am really shocked that Mr. Maine has such a weak grasp of what you are trying to say here.

  10. KathyS says:

    Now here is a decline I bet the global warmers would like to hide. Mr. Maine, I am really quite shocked that you would dismiss this kind of data.

  11. Kristina says:

    If this wasn’t so funny it would be sad. I printed out the chart and I am going to hang it on my wall.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s