Posted on 01/20/2015 11:16:32 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Last year, government scientists tell us, was the hottest year on record.
This news is terribly — what's the word? — inconvenient.
No, not for polar bears or drought victims or coastal dwellers. It's inconvenient for politicians across the country who, despite whatever data or overwhelming scientific consensus might be proffered, insist on denying global warming.
In recent weeks, West Virginia has snatched national headlines for its attempts to doctor school science standards to discredit climate change. The sixth-grade science curriculum, for example, was amended so that, rather than having students "clarify evidence of the factors that have caused the rise in global temperatures over the past century," they would examine causes behind the rise "and fall" in global temperatures.
After a national outcry from educators, West Virginia backed down. But the science curriculum standards — which come from recommendations developed and adopted by a partnership of states — have already been rejected by Wyoming. South Carolina blocked the standards before they were even finalized, and other states are gearing up for similar battles. Climate change has slipped into the same contentious curricular role that evolution once occupied, and some sort of Scopes penguin trial or a debate over "intelligent warming" seems inevitable....
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/18/ooops-nasa-now-38-sure-2014-was-warmest-year-on-record/
Ooops. NASA now “38% sure” 2014 was warmest year on record
posted at 9:31 am on January 18, 2015 by Jazz Shaw
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true…
The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
The same Reds who said “question authority” now want the sheeple to bow down and accept their fabricated facts without inquiry.
Very expensive satellites were deployed over thirty years ago because it was known that surface based reporting stations did not give great accuracy for global temperature calculations. There are many siting and location issues. Urban areas are over represented and there are large areas of the earth’s surface that are not measured, not to mention instrumentation issues and many other factors. They are also more vulnerable to manipulation from agencies and governments that have political motivation to skew the data.
If one only uses data only from rural areas most reporting stations show no warming for approximately 20 years. It is also quite a coincidence that stations in third world countries who are hoping to receive compensation through the UN often seem to show warming that is more pronounced than stations in other areas.
So what do the satellites which have none of these issues show? They show that average temperatures have not warmed for 18 years and 3 months now. This is called the “pause” and it is universally recognized even by many warmists.
“Urban areas are over represented and there are large areas of the earth’s surface that are not measured, not to mention instrumentation issues and many other factors.”
There is a website with photos of weather stations and how their surroundings have changed. Like how 20 years ago it was in the back yard of the fire station surrounded by grass. Now it sits in an asphalt parking lot between the old station and the new 2-story building.
I have a photo of the ones at the new “Environmental Education building at our zoo. The building is partly into a hillside, grass sod roof, etc. The weather station is in the fenced-off gravel area 10 feet from the three large A/C structures fro the building!
If they are getting 0.02% more accurate temperature readings, couldn’t that account for a 0.02% “increase” in recorded temperatures?
Have a look here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/20/2014-the-most-dishonest-year-on-record/ Don't even read the article. Just have a look at the graph. Within the error bars, 2008, which is nominally the third coolest year in the last sixteen years, could actually turn out to be the warmest.
The amount by which NASA claims this is the "warmest year on record is .02° That is five times smaller than the actual margin of error claimed by NASA, which is about 0.1°. Within the MOE, there is virtually NO DIFFERENCE in the last sixteen years, even for the cherry picked data NASA is using.
Significant figures used to be taught in seventh grade. Basic tests of statistical significance used to be taught to honor students in high school. The geniuses at NASA apparently skipped those classes.
Rocket Science, apparently, isn't Rocket Science any more...
They’ve been installing weather stations on top of heat islands for decades. A frigging airport is NOT going to tell you what the temp is 30 miles away, nor is it going to give an accurate representation of the mean areal temp in a given geographic region. I studied this in college. I do ongoing online coursework with NOAA. I’m a grad NWS storm spotter. It’s a lifelong hobby. I’m no certified meteorologist or atmospheric scientist, but with my background, I can tell you that we’re being mushroomed. Global Whining extortionists should be tried, convicted, and thrown naked onto an ice floe.
I like how they justify the “pause” in global warming. They are so certain that temps will rise, but the can’t explain why. At least not without a few million in grants.
U.S. government scientists say it’s the hottest year on record. NORK economists say they have the best system known to man.
Who are we to question experts.
I'll take government cheese for $100, Alex.
I guess they’ve already forgotten Al Gore and ilk claiming the ice caps would be gone by 2013. Convenient memory, I suppose.
But pay Al Gore and globalist pals lots of money so they can save us—from nothing.
Accepting that 2014 was the hottest year ever and granting that global warming is an unmitigated disaster, how does one explain:
“As expected, the USDA Crop Production Report released on Jan. 12 indicates that both the total U.S. corn production and soybean production for 2014 were at record levels. The final 2014 national average yields per acre for both corn and soybeans were also at record levels.”
http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/blog/usda-report-recap-january-2015
Global warming changing its name to “climate change” was a tacit admission the warming had stopped.
Now it is being called “Climate disruption”, as if they now admit it isn’t changing much but we want to blame every tornado, hurricane and severe storm on this boogeyman.
The Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were warmer than today, and there were no SUVs 1000 and 2000 years ago respectively.
But kids don’t even know about those warmer periods, much less that it was warmer when the dinosaurs ran around or during the last interglacial 100,000 years ago.
Kids don't know about earlier this morning unless someone tells them about it on the schmartfone.
First, the margin of error in the calculations using the data from ground based stations is far more than that even using their own figures. For decades it had been acknowledged that temperatures peaked during the 1930s and that even the strong El Nino in 1998 did not come close to reaching the temperatures from that time period. Over the past ten years however “for greater accuracy” the major databases have been adjusted downward during previous warm periods.
The raw data is still available, but the way that they calculate average temperatures has been “adjusted”. It is fairly easy to give the high and low temperatures for one location... calculating the average temperature is slightly more complicated. Temperatures are taken at equal intervals... say every 1/2 hour and then all of the readings are added together and then divided by the total number of intervals. This gives an average. Then the averages for the recording stations are added together and divided by the number of stations.
This is fairly straight forward and if one was uses data from the same recording stations and if the same instruments have been used one would assume that the data would show historical trends that could be graphed and would give a relatively accurate representation of what overall temperature trends have been. The problem for the alarmists is that if one takes the raw data available and performs these types of calculations and makes graphs from the results... the temperatures from the early and mid 1930s come out significantly warmer than more recent temperatures.
The biggest problem with this type of analysis is that it really only gives meaningful results if data from the same stations are being used and also if the instrumentation is accurate, has not been changed, and it has been set up correctly at appropriate sites. Unfortunately, most of these conditions are often not met. For example stations set up originally in rural locations which are now surrounded by asphalt, concrete, and structures show warming. Also thermometers must be changed over long periods of time and newer instruments often give different readings... hopefully, but not always more accurate readings. So it is reasonable to make some adjustments to the data for greater accuracy on a site by site basis. Most of the biases introduced tend to give false warming trends.
To get the results that they want they have come up with more complicated ways to calculate average temperatures world wide. First they claim that they are breaking the world into a grid and giving each section equal representation. Then they “cherry pick” the data by leaving out or adjusting the raw data from recording stations that do not fit the narrative. Then urban areas which tend have more recording stations and also tend to be warming because of the “urban heat island” effect are still over represented. It has been found on numerous occasions that “scientists” have estimated the temperatures of millions of square miles from remote areas such as Siberia and Northern Canada based on raw data taken from instruments hundreds of miles away located in urban areas.
To make this type of subterfuge more difficult to discover the “scientists” often refuse to release their methods or even disclose the stations that they are getting the data from. It becomes a garbage in garbage out situation. This is why the satellite data which is far more difficult to manipulate, uses much higher resolution, and was designed to be more accurate than ground based stations is much more appropriate to use for determining worldwide temperature trends.
The satellite data clearly shows that there has been no worldwide warming trend for nearly twenty years now.
They meant “question GOD’s authority”, and not just question it but undermine it.
They meant to put themselves in place of God’s authority, and you dare not question THEIR authority once they have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.