For the Record: World Meteorological Organization Says Past Decade Warmest

|

Coinciding with the opening of the Copenhagen climate change conference, the World Meteorological Organization issued a press release that declares:

The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment.

The last decade may well be the warmest in the modern record, but what about the leaked October 12, 2009 Climategate email from National Climatic Data Center head Kevin Trenberth where he wrote: 

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.

It appears that the planet has been stuck for about ten years at a temperature that is about 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1961-1998 average. See global temperature anomaly chart comparing data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the Climate Research Unit (CRU), the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Services (RSS)  below:

Temp Anomalies

Read the whole WMO statement here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Wall Street Blues

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. For the Record: World Meteorological Organization Says Past Decade Warmest

    … compared to the Historical Records given to us by the CRU . . .

    Oooops!

    1. Global Climate Science needs to be renamed: Political Science.

      1. Oh SNAP!

  2. In today’s paper (the uber-lefty San Jose Mercury News), it said: UN says this decade the warmest.

    I died laughing… It was 30 F***cking degrees in Santa Cruz this morning.

    1. Which is relevant how?

      Your certainty that AGW is a complete fabrication is just as stupid as the so called experts’ certainty that it is happening. No one can know for sure. The data is not good enough.

      1. Agree to a point.

        However, the default position of actual science is that the Earth’s climate changes without human beings. That is actual settled science based on facts and data.

        Those arguing that humans do play a role and how large a role have to prove their case against the default position.

        1. True, but that means we don’t know. A number of commenters on here seem to thing that they know for certain that AGW is a complete hoax and has no validity whatsoever. Perhaps they are just being hyperbolic, I don’t know.
          The default position of any scientist who does not have some damn good experimental data which has been independently confirmed and is available for analysis by other scientists should be “I don’t know”. Those of us who only know what other people tell us should consider things the same way. I sure as hell don’t know what is going on with global climate (and I doubt anyone really does) and I am happy to admit that and not pretend to know the answer.

          1. Let me be on record that I do not believe AGW is a hoax.

            No, it is a total FRAUD. A hoax is something used by gadflies to have a good laugh or to nibble at someone’s high horse. AGW is a hypothesis for climate change (meaning, it is an explanation for climate change), but the science that has been done to support it has been a total fraud.

            I do believe in Global Warming, though – the Earth has gone to several eras of warming and cooling. I just don’t believe WE PEOPLE are so god damned powerful we can actually affect the total climate system just because we drive cars.

          2. The default is that no one has to prove a negative.

            The burden of proof is entirely on those who claim humans are warming up the planet.

            And it has be absolute and definitive proof.

            1. Warmists forget that the way the scientists reached the conclusion that humans were warming the planet was by inferring it from their data, under the following conditions:

              A) No other cause was found,
              B) No other era had a rapid warming period, and,
              B) Emissions are increasing faster now compared to other eras.

              Skeptics have said that A) cannot be taken for granted since there may be other variables that mitigate or exacerbate GW, not only human-made emissions. They also have said that B) depended on a set of data that may have been incorrectly averaged or put together.

              A) and B) depend heavily on the accuracy of the historical averages that the different hubs (or, as I believe, only the CRU) have compiled. If these historical averages are incorrect or even fraudulently created, then B) could be wrong, and thus the science is wrong.

              If another cause for the warming is found, then A) is wrong and the current conclusions are also wrong.

              So the approach from the Warmist camp has been to, first, protect the data so that B) is viewed as correct and stop any publishing of papers that contradict A).

              As to C), I have no idea if emissions have really been increasing at an accelerated rate as assured. My guess is that they have, but that would be relevant ONLY if A) and B) are true. Otherwise it just becomes an interesting piece of trivia.

              1. I’ll show you a human-made emission!

      2. Your certainty that AGW is a complete fabrication is just as stupid as the so called experts’ certainty that it is happening. No one can know for sure. The data is not good enough.

        Fake but possibly accurate!

      3. The data is not good enough.

        Ain’t that the truth!

    2. Because obviously Santa Cruz is the entire Earth and this morning was the entire decade.

      1. “I ain’t understandin’ this here global warmin’. It done be cold outside!”

  3. The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850…

    Oh, shoot, you missed the warmest-est decade: 1840-1849, by just ONE year. Oh, if you ONLY started recording THEN…

  4. That’s interesting, because here in Oklahoma, 2009 brought us the mildest, coolest summer I can remember experiencing in my 25 years of life here, as well as, so far, one of the coldest winters I’ve seen here.

    1. the full release does say that Canada and the US were cooler than average. I can see why maybe that could be true as North America as a land mass perhaps has some weather patter this year that would do that, but this makes me recall some AGW skeptic that i saw on tv years ago and one of his areas of skeptisism was that most of the surface temp warming data is due to warming in countries NOT in the US or Canada… he argued that 3rd world measurments were not accurate and that in Canada and in the US where we actually have better measurment history there just isnt a lot of warming. I know there are other sources lie esatalite data… but this just made me think of this.

      1. Makes me think of a peasant that was given the task of taking temperature readings in his part of the world, getting paid per reading.

        “Today it feels like it is 23 Deg Celsius, sooo…. mmmm, two, three, and a C… That’s it. I mail this today, and receive my cheque in a week. This is EASY! And I don;t even have to have that thermometer they gave me, the one I pawned! Stupid yankees.”

  5. The last decade may well be the warmest in the modern record, but what about the leaked October 12, 2009 Climategate email from National Climate Data Center head Kevin Trenberth where he wrote:

    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.

    What about it? The science is setteld! The evidence is overwhelming! The guy didn’t even need to lie, it is all there! The planet is melting – polar bears are falling from the sky as we speak!

    1. NOOOOO!!!! Please tell me what or who i need to throw money at to get them to stop falling. Poor little… Uh big guys.

  6. Sorry for the cut and paste (and repeating myself)

    Reason Mag is a favorite over at The Volokh Conspiracy (a UCLA law professor blog) – they have a post up detailing how Willis Eschenbach from “Watts Up With That” deconstructed the CRU’s “homogenized data” as it relates to the actual temperature readings collected in Australia. The takedown is devistating.

    HAT TIP to Johnny Longtorso:

    The takedown:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..rwin-zero/

    1. After reading the post at wattsup I had the thought that liberals’ reaction to this sort of thing is similar to Mississippi Republicans’ reaction to the deeds of Steven Hayne.

    2. For balance.
      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoi…..medium=rss

  7. Just to give the answer the AGW pushers will come up with after some people question how this can be considering the cooling they’ve experienced recently:

    Just because it’s colder where YOU are doesn’t mean the EARTH isn’t warming.

    Also, we are the experts, and we will decide when the last “warmest” decade for the earth was, and also, SHUTUP.

    1. Re: Tman,

      Just because it’s colder where YOU are doesn’t mean the EARTH isn’t warming.

      Indeed, Tman: For Warmist (like Tony, for instance), when days are nice and cool, which should prove there is NO warming, it is just the WEATHER; when days are HOT, then it is Climate Change. That’s how it works…

      1. I would never make such an idiotic claim.

        We’re talking about a higher average global temperature. That doesn’t mean it will be hotter everywhere all at once. It may mean via certain natural disruptions that some places get much colder.

        1. I don’t think I’m going to waste time finding samples, but I distinctly recall you making such “idiotic claims” on numerous occasions. STFU.

    2. Which is of course absolutely correct. But someone needs to remind them that they use the same stupid, wrong argument all the time (Katrina was a sign of global warming, spring thunderstorms are signs of doom, etc.).

  8. The best part is: Any agreement reached in Copenhagen will be dead letter once the nations with the dumbest people (meaning those that accept ANYTHING their government tells them) implement the restrictions, whereas the countries with the smart people (the Chinese, of course) keep on producing, trading and buying.

    I sure hope Mexico does not sign anything (which would not matter since people in Mexico don’t listen or care about the government anyway), because it will be the safe haven for many Americans running away from Obamanomics…

    1. Costa Rica looks pretty nice from what I’ve seen while my girlfriend was watching House Hunters International. That’s where I’m planning to go.

      1. Yes, that is also how I select my strategic areas of operation–from TV crib shows.

        1. Perhaps Mad Elf was merely looking for a nice place to live and not a “strategic area of operation”. In which case, TV crib shows might make sense.

  9. You can tell this is biased advocacy if for no other reason than the press release from the supposed scientific organization devotes half its text to selective anecdotal temperatures, warmest X in Y, without once mentioning any places that have had the coldest X in Y.

    If they had been real scientist, they would also have mentioned that the entire concept of a single global temperatures is notional at best.

    And as always, we should ignore any such claims until the raw data and software that processed it are made completely public.

    1. And as always, we should ignore any such claims until the raw data and software that processed it are made completely public.

      That’s a bit too high of a standard. We don’t expect that in any other science — I guarantee that few of the computational physics papers published in Physical Review E, for instance, are accompanied by source code and input data. It’s just too much information to publish.

      They should make it available upon request though (perhaps for a nominal fee if there’s a lot of it).

      1. It’s not to high a standard for the data and software which is going to help decide the economic and technological structure for the entire planet for the next decade.

        It’s not to high a standard for the data and software that is supposedly telling us we’ve got to kill hundreds of millions of people over next few decades in order to fend off a predicted apocalypse.

        Scientific publishing is still stuck in the 1890’s. They still have a system based on gentlemen’s agreements and a broad assumption of professional trust. They still act like publishing sever megabytes of data (which is already in a database) onto the web is a big deal.

        When these scientist started claiming the ability to predict the future of the climate and thereby laying claim to telling literally how every human being from here out will live (and who will die) they moved into the big time of transparency and accountability.

    2. without once mentioning any places that have had the coldest X in Y.

      The press conference noted that the only places in the world which did not follow the trend were the US and Canada.

      1. The Drudge Report usually lends a hand here, as well. i.e. Gore Is A Stupid Retard!: Global Warming Conference Held Despite Driving Blizzard In Chicago!!!

        Sometimes, there is a little siren.

        1. I tend to think that’s done more for the humor & poetics of it all.

  10. Hot enough for ya?

  11. Old Mexican hints at something I was thinking; will countries really abide by any agreement that comes out of this meeting? Who would enforce any rules they come up with? Isn’t this meeting just a lot of grandstanding?

    1. Of course it is. There will never be any successful agreement like this. This is what irritates me the most about this stuff. Even supposing that the worst case scenarios proposed are true, we are not going to stop it from happening.
      If they are really concerned about global warming (anthropogenic or not) people need to stop wasting energy and money on things like Copenhagen and think about what to do if sea levels do rise significantly or weather patterns change in ways that affect agriculture. Instead of pretending that everything is supposed to stay just like it was from 1961 to 1990, learn to adapt and deal with changes in climate which are inevitable and have always happened.

  12. I just hope I can land a landscaping job on some nice hacienda.

    1. Try it in San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato – there’s a lot of rich retirees living there…

      Seems that you can open a savings account in Silver Bullion in some banks… something the Fed and its pet bitch, Barney F, would not allow in the US…

      1. mexico is very difficult to emigrate to. plus they frown on my guns. otherwise i’d be in puerto penasco right now..

        1. True, with all of their training and pamphlets helping people move to the states, their very serious about keeping non-citizens out.

          1. Plus, Guanajuato is just fun to say.

            Guanajuato. Guanajuato. Guanajuato.

        2. Really? I was in Tijuana recently, and they had an unguarded revolving one-way gate into Mexico. You just walk right on in.

          Getting back into the U.S., now that crossing was guarded.

          1. no problem to visit, but residency is a little different.

          2. Well, crossing the border into Mexico is easy. Emigrating to Mexico is more difficult than trying to emigrate to the USA. The bureaucratic hurdles are higher…

  13. Note this bit at the end:

    This press release was issued in collaboration with the Hadley Centre of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office; the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom;

    Yep, we’re gonna have to demand a lot of transparency here.

    1. Denier!!!!

  14. a temperature that is about 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1961-1998 average.

    “Possibly” as much as eight tenths of a degree.

    This may surprise you, but I do not see this as cause for panic.

    1. And CO2 concentraitions have gone up a bunch since 1961. Yet fifty years later we are not significantly warmer.

      1. It’s a complicated relationship. Didn’t you see my movie?

  15. And- the temp here has soared to two (2) degrees above zero, F.

    I wouldn’t mind a little global warming, right now.

    1. Where bthe fuck are you?

  16. Just because it’s colder where YOU are doesn’t mean the EARTH isn’t warming.

    Also, we are the experts, and we will decide when the last “warmest” decade for the earth was, and also, SHUTUP.

    *sticks fingers in ears*

    LALALALALALALALA!!

  17. I blame it on Kilauea volcano. erupting nonstop for 25 years. Spewing lots of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.

    1. I blame it on the pootin’ cows. Pootin’ all the time. Where’s the fucking respect? 15 billion mammals breathin’ and pootin’ non-stop.

      1. Fuck, I forgot to change my name. Besides, Al wouldn’t use gratuitous profanity.

  18. It’s the warmest decade if you first adjust the raw temperature data upwards more and more each decade without clear justification, in order to ensure that it is warming. Additionally, based on our basic understanding of climate cycles, it would be surprising if the 2000’s weren’t warmer than the 90’s and those warmer than the 80’s, unless we’ve reached the turning point where we’re headed into another cold period similar to the little ice age.

    1. Whatever it is doing we have to stop driving the cool trucks and stop using air conditioning because it is all our fault.

  19. I heard a wise old foxnews reporter lead this story yesterday morning by saying that this was the warmest decade “in the history of the world.”

    1. He must have meant The History of the World Part II.

  20. The AGW crowd is behaving like a cornered animal. Instead of doing what real scientists would do, and admit that they really don’t understand the climate yet, they are doubling down on the bullshit. They think we will all just go away. Dumb motherfuckers.

    1. They are surrounded by yes men. They really seem to believe they have it right, they just haven’t been able to prove it yet.

      As far as us going away, I can pretty much assume there is no chance of that.

    2. Yes, the circling of the wagons tells volumes about their priorities. Makes me think that most of the research hubs were simply rehashing what a few were doing, mainly from the CRU. Otherwise they would have been a) Outraged, and b) Assuring the public that THEIR data was completely independently gathered and collated.

      I don’t think that’s the case – it is not like we have a Darwin and a Wallace arriving at the same conclusions under entirely different circumstances and with different data.

    3. Maybe it’s you who don’t understand climate science, ever consider that for one second?

      The leaked emails do not serve as evidence that the basic facts about climate change are in question. Ask any relevant expert and that’s exactly what he’ll say.

      I doubt you’ll go away, you’ll probably continue spreading your crackpot bullshit until the day you die, since suffering the embarrassment and shame of being wrong about something so major is not something small-minded crackpots do easily.

      1. Tony,

        Maybe it’s you who don’t understand climate science, ever consider that for one second?

        I have been told by creationists the same thing, when I used to debate them on Natural Selection – that I did not understand science.

        The leaked emails do not serve as evidence that the basic facts about climate change are in question.

        And you’re absolutely right. What they serve to prove is that the conclusions (that humans are heating up the planet) came from made-up data. That’s all.

        Ask any relevant expert and that’s exactly what he’ll say.

        I prefer to ask the irrelevant ones, you know, all those physicists, staticians and chemists that also support AGW. They are not climate scientists either, so how can they know?

  21. The shaggy and oily Indian guy, head of the IPCC:

    Restaurants: Stop serving ice water – this was the WARMEST decade on record!

    (Did that make sense?)

    1. The shaggy and oily Indian guy,

      HURR DURR HURR HURR HURRRRRR

      1. Ok, Hindu.

  22. The facts may be fake, but the story is true.

  23. Climate extremes, including devastating floods, severe droughts, snowstorms, heatwaves and cold waves, were recorded in many parts of the world.

    So, is the WMO trying to say that a fraction of a degree in warming, not even the full .8 degree, is responsible for all of this woe?

    Of course, they don’t come right and say that. Best to just put this sentence in a press release and let people draw their own conclusions.

    1. D’oh, the above was me.

      1. ? I DONT GET IT??!! WTF!?!!!!

  24. They are surrounded by yes men.

    Like Tony?

  25. I wonder if those results are the same if you throw out the CRU and GISS — the two series that are under fire for not answering FOIA and supplying data. By eyeball, I’d say 99-09 are indistinguishable from 98-08 with those two gone. Also the average would be down about 0.4 deg C.

  26. Re: Mitch,

    Old Mexican hints at something I was thinking; will countries really abide by any agreement that comes out of this meeting? Who would enforce any rules they come up with? Isn’t this meeting just a lot of grandstanding?

    The morons at the UN really think they can enforce these rules through the creation of a Global Manager or Enforcer (i.e. a global government). That is jsut a pipe dream, an absurdity – most of the countries have governments with very little power, others are not going to simply hobble THEIR generators of revenue and others will simply say “Yes, whatever you say, dude” and simply do something else.

    It will be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce these rules besides huffing and puffing and imposing crippling tariffs (crippling for the domestic market, that is). It would be absurd to threaten military action because most of the big developing countries already have nuclear weapons.

    So whatever the dreams of the lefties and the watermellons, the fact is that no such global treaty will ever work or be inforced because the governments act as individuals, in a true anarchist way.

    … which is preferable. Imagine if the US was the ONLY superpower with ANY power in the world, and Obama was in charge (or Bush, or Clinton): We would be all f*cked – under Clinton, in the tail…

  27. Ron,

    You do know those concerns that Trenbeth had in the email were referring to a paper that Trenberth himself published mentioning that very thing. It’s not like he kept that info to himself. There’s a link to that very paper in the very same email.

    Sure it shows that some scientists have bias, but everyone should know that. Scientists are humans, humans have bias.

    1. Yes. I know. I read the paper. Anyone else wants to you the link is here. Interestingly, he didn’t use the word “travesty” in his article.

      1. Ron,
        Would you have expected him to?

        I must admit I found your juxtaposition of the press release with his email a bit odd.

        1. Would you have expected him to?

          You mean expose his oblivious bias in regards to interpreting data?

          No I would not expect him to do that. That is why science requires full disclosure of data and methodology so that those without such biases or even different biases can examine and replicate it.

          1. Indeed. I am sure that is why the journal he published in has policies related to this issue.

            9. Ethics in Publishing: General Statement
            Ethics
            The Editor(s) and Publisher of this Journal believe that there are fundamental principles underlying scholarly or professional publishing. While this may not amount to a formal ‘code of conduct’, these fundamental principles with respect to the authors’ paper are that the paper should: i) be the authors’ own original work, which has not been previously published elsewhere, ii) reflect the authors’ own research and analysis and do so in a truthful and complete manner, iii) properly credit the meaningful contributions of co-authors and co-researchers, iv) not be submitted to more than one journal for consideration, and v) be appropriately placed in the context of prior and existing research. Of equal importance are ethical guidelines dealing with research methods and research funding, including issues dealing with informed consent, research subject privacy rights, conflicts of interest, and sources of funding. While it may not be possible to draft a ‘code’ that applies adequately to all instances and circumstances, we believe it useful to outline our expectations of authors and procedures that the Journal will employ in the event of questions concerning author conduct.

            Conflicts of Interest
            The Publisher now requires authors to declare any conflicts of interest that relate to papers accepted for publication in this Journal. A conflict of interest may exist when an author or the author’s institution has a financial or other relationship with other people or organizations that may inappropriately influence the author’s work. A conflict can be actual or potential and full disclosure to the Journal is the safest course. All submissions to the Journal must include disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest. The Journal may use such information as a basis for editorial decisions and may publish such disclosures if they are believed to be important to readers in judging the manuscript. A decision may be made by the Journal not to publish on the basis of the declared conflict. For more information, please refer to:
            http://www.elsevier.com/wps/fi…..ofinterest

            1. Please note that this particular journal publishes literature reviews, so no “raw data” would be involved.

              1. The article, btw, puts the “travesty” comment in context and shows why those screaming “scandal” based on it and similar emails are trying to create a tempest in a teapot.

  28. OK, look: I am just as pissed about the Climategate lies as many of you, but fucking stop making anecdotal comments like “it’s 30 degrees in my town today; global warming my ass!”. It just makes you look like an idiot and gives fundamentalists an excuse to not listen.

    Seriously, fucking stop. Now.

    1. Agreed. That’s a crappy argument. My favorite now is to mention how Greenland got its name because it was warm there once. Pre-USA.

      1. How did Greenland get its name?
        If it was indeed glacier free within the last 1000 years, I’d say that “how did Greenland get its name?” is an effective response to folks who are panicking about the ice sheets receding.

        1. Don’t forget those falling Polar Bears….

        2. Greenland got its name as a public relations gimmick by Eric the Red.

        3. It was green before humans arrived. The ice sheets formed when there was a dip in CO2, now the sheets are receding again because of rising CO2. Not exactly my point, but still relevant to this discussion because it shows natural temperature fluctuations without human intervention.

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..163818.htm

      2. I do agree with the rest. Here in Ohio, we had a mild summer. My brother in Seattle says last summer was damn hot.

      3. I had heard that was a trick to try to get people to settle there. And that brings up the thorny question of how Iceland got its name…

    2. Ok agreed – it was hotter outside than last decade ago…

      😉

    3. Saying it was “ts 30 degrees in my town today” isn’t a good argument. You’re right.

      But I’m not sure how its that different from saying well, its 30 degrees cooler here, and 31 warmer over there, so the global temp is 1 degree warmer.

      If you can’t use local temps to argue against global warming, how is it that averaging them together gives you any better results? Yes, you have more data points, but isn’t it possible that for reasons unrelated to global warming that some areas are experiencing warming?

      What I’m saying is… I think people should stop using the dumb arguments, but its hard to argue against it when their opponents are saying the same thing.

      1. A global average temperature rise of one degree is a lot more significant that a rise in one location because it represents an enormously larger amount of heat being retained by the atmosphere and is far less likely to result from random chance.

        1. Ok, more significant – to whom? WHO cares?

          That has been the problem – the Warmists have been forecasting massive storms and droughts, coast lines receding towards land, New York being frozen and polar bears falling from the sky, because of an increase of FOUR (that’s 1,2,3,4) degrees by 2050!

          Of course, the Earth has not been heating up that much, and seems like the polar bears cannot fly. So we’re good.

          1. He means significant in a statistical sense.

    4. Seriously, fucking stop. Now.

      It is cold here.

    5. But its fucking 45 degrees in L.A. I have to use my heater. There’s no way the world is warming. What a sham.

  29. And as always, we should ignore any such claims until the raw data and software that processed it are made completely public.

    Shannon, I agree with you completely. Moreover, I would expand to needing to prove that even the unaltered raw data used truly is representative of what is going on.

    I can’t remember where I heard or read it in the past week, but if I understood correctly the raw data used for all these calculation consists of a single daily average temperature derived by averaging the high and low temperature for the day at the data collection location. Even assuming that the high and the low are accurately recorded and without non-climatic influences over time, I find it surprising that there is much meaningful information within that data.

    My challenge to our resident experts and warmists, i.e. Tony, Chad and MNG, is to explain:

    1. Why in a day consisting of 24 hours or 1440 minutes, is the average of two measurements taken at two specific instances, not even at the same time each day, an accurate representation of the temperature that day.

    2. Why is a day that slowly and linearly raises from a low of 32f at 2am to a high of 50f at 2pm the same as a day that has a before noon low of 40f and a high of 50f at 8am, but is 32f at noon where it remains until after midnight the same? In both cases the average for the day = 41f. (asumes I understood how the daile avg. temp was being calculated)

    3. Why is a sample rate of twice daily adequate?

    4. Why is there no aliasing error caused by a sample rate of only twice daily?

    1. Just wait till we cover all that open space with solar panels… and then find out that covering up open land masses with concrete and the like has been the cause of the problem the whole time. lol.

      1. Or in quest for reneable energy we turn the North American prarie states into a wildlife desert by ripping out all the treelines and grass sections and replace them with row crops grown for ethenol.

        1. Without sufficient cover, there is no wildlife however abundant the food.

  30. For the Record: World Meteorological Organization Says Past Decade Warmest of the past 3 decades.

    Until the CRU and NASA and NOAA start publishing their raw data and methodology only temperatures from the satellite data and methodology can be trusted.

  31. I wouldn’t worry about that too much. I live there. We learned OUR lesson during the 30’s.

    1. Don’t get too comfy, Kant. I lived in dust bowl territory, too. The farmers have begun tearing out the windbreaks.

      1. Scroll down the link to Pheasant in Minnestoa
        http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hun…..index.html

        This .pdf explains how modern, “enviromentally” friendly farming and a switch to row crops from small grain is hurting wildlife.

        Gamebird species are the “mine canary” of land use.

  32. Climate extremes, including devastating floods, severe droughts, snowstorms, heatwaves and cold waves, were recorded in many parts of the world.

    This statement would be true of any random ten year period you care to pick. The earth is a big place. Unlikely stuff is going to happen somewhere on it at any given time.

    The oddest, most unlikely scenario of all would be a time period where no extremes were recorded anywhere on earth.

  33. Climate extremes, including devastating floods, severe droughts, snowstorms, heatwaves and cold waves, were recorded in many parts of the world.

    This statement would be true of any random ten year period you care to pick. The earth is a big place. Unlikely stuff is going to happen somewhere on it at any given time.

    The oddest, most unlikely scenario of all would be a time period where no extremes were recorded anywhere on earth.

    1. It also helps with a revolution in space technology over the past fifty years so as a scientist (or anyone else these days) you actually can see and hear all about it in real-time.

  34. It was farging snowing in Los Angeles the other day.

    Global warming believers should hop on a rocket to Mars and get cracking on raising the CO2 levels, atmospheric density and average temperatures on a planet really needs it. If it’s so easy to warm the atmosphere that we can do it by accident here, it should be three times as easy to do it by design on a planet with less than 1/3 of Earth’s surface area.

    1. I’d have to go hunt for it (don’t have the time right this second) but I’m thinking that I heard somewhere that Mars is experiencing global warming too. If so, I guess that’s the fault of SUV owners too…

      1. If so, I guess that’s the fault of SUV owners too…

        Damn, and we only put two of them on Mars – and LOOK AT THE DAMAGE THEY’VE DONE!!!!!!

    2. You do know the Martian atmosphere is already 97% CO2, right? The low temperatures are mainly due to the fact that it’s more than 50 million miles further from the sun.

  35. Ok, whatever we think, we must *do* something to stop those bears from falling off the sky…

  36. Do you think scientists could at least learn how to count a decade correctly? They go from 1 to 0, not 0 to 9. There was no year 0.

    1. A decade starts at every moment in time.

      If I choose to define 1 BC as the first year of the first decade, that’s my prerogative.

    2. Year 0 of what?

    3. Call me a crank, but I didn’t celebrate the new millineum until Jan 1, 2001.

  37. It was farging snowing in Los Angeles the other day.

    Uh-oh. Are you gonna be in trouble.

  38. How about any of you deniers explain why putting 90 million tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every day should have no effect on anything?

    1. Because the atmosphere weighs about 6 x 10 to 15 or 6,000,000,000,000,000 tons, Tony, dear, darling, sweetheart.

      THAT’S why.

      1. So putting 90 million tons into the atmosphere daily for many decades of a known greenhouse agent will have absolutely zero effect on average global temperatures?

        And you know this how?

        1. a known greenhouse agent

          Says who? The term “greenhouse agent” is a marketing tool.

          1. I’ve noticed that you haven’t taken me up on my challenge.

          2. Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. Carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere.

            Did you graduate 5th grade?

        2. Oh, I am not saying it will have ZERO effect – it will have LITTLE effect. And I know this because of two things: One, CO2 is plant food – they LOVE that crap. And, 90 million each day is about 3,285,000,000,000 or 3,285 billion tons per Century, which is about .00054 the total weight of the atmosphere or 0.005%

    2. Can you please provide a source for 90 million tons per day, by the way Tony? I’m thinking you actually pulled that out of your ass.

      The US Energy Information Agency claims that total human emissions of CO2 are 6.41 gigatons per year, that’s 6,410,000,000 tons right…. thus only 17,561,643.8 tons per day.

      17 Million…… Not 90.

      Now… I have seen figures as high as 26.4 gigatons per year at, for instance, Skeptical Science…. But that actually only breaks down to 72,328,767.1 tons per day.

      Soooooooooooo…. With the highest figures I could find, you’re exaggerating by 20 million tons per day. And then, you know… what Old Mexican said.

      It’s yet another example of people throwing out giant numbers that might seem very scary out of context, but which put into perspective are ridiculously, almost inconsequentially small.

    3. There’s a big difference between saying that something will have no effect, and saying it will have a catastrophic effect — and that we are going past the point of no return unless we act now, now, now!

      Sorry, maybe this is the case of the species that cried wolf, but generally when humans create intense pressure to make decisions quickly, it’s because they want you to make a decision that you might consider incorrect given additional time and consideration.

  39. From what I can tell in the data, maximum and minimum temperatures recorded per year haven’t gone up or down, but that the delta-t in the between the two extremes has been ever-so-slowly contracting.

    The earth isn’t necessarily warming in real temperatures so much as the extreme between hot and cold is narrowing, with the cold shifting up by tenths-of-a-degree per century.

    Given that actual sunlight reaching the earth has gone down (global dimming)and temperature extremes are narrowing (not rising in net sum), sounds less like warming and more like a big humidifier to me.

  40. Climategate and the Hamster Effect

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/c…..er-effect/

  41. I live on the southeast coast. We have been having a lot of afternoon thunderstorms during the summer months. I don’t know what to do.

  42. And as always, we should ignore any such claims until the raw data and software that processed it are made completely public.

    That’s a bit too high of a standard. We don’t expect that in any other science — I guarantee that few of the computational physics papers published in Physical Review E, for instance, are accompanied by source code and input data. It’s just too much information to publish.

    Too many pages. Far too many pages.

    But I have been given source code on request (only asked the once). And a nice multi-page discussion of the underlying assumptions, and the environment the code was compiled in.

    They should make it available upon request though (perhaps for a nominal fee if there’s a lot of it).

    All I did was send a polite email introducing myself as a grad student working with :::more senior scientist they might know of::: and asking for clarification of a few points or the source code.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.