Climate and State High Temperature Records – Where’s the Beef?

clip_image002

*How will climate alarmists spin this data from the NOAA?

Via Wattsupwiththat.com

The summer of 2012 is now over and all temperature data recorded. Guess how many states set new state high-temperature records in 2012? None! According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), not one of our 50 states set a new state high temperature record in 2012 (emphasis mine) (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec).

When wildfires raged through Colorado in June, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University told Reuters, “What we’re seeing is a window into what global warming really looks like…It looks like heat, it looks like fires, it looks like this kind of environmental disaster…” Temperatures in Denver did reach 105oF in June, but this was far below the state record-high temperature of 114oF, set jointly in 1933 and 1954. Were Colorado wildfires worse in 1933 and 1954?
Read more at Wattsupwiththat.com

, , , , ,

  • http://twitter.com/DanielReasor Daniel Reasor

    So what’s melting the polar ice?

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      Pole shift?

      • Liam_McGonagle

        That makes sense. Americans are fatter than at any time in its previously recorded history. It is just possible that someone in the last couple of years has eaten just enough McDonald’s hamburgers to throw the earth off its axis.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Hahaha good one.

    • TennesseeCyberian

      No, seriously, WHAT’S WITH THE MELTING POLAR ICE?

      And more importantly, should people sell their beach houses now?

      • Marklar_Prime

        It’s all the hot air from the AGW crowd.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire
    • Reasor

      In the article that you cite, Camron, the research team are quoted as saying
      that it’s too early to say whether 2012′s unusually warm jet stream
      (which Sheffield University’s blogger disconnects from the warming
      ocean, demonstrating a lack of understanding of what the jet stream is)
      is anomalous.

      Performing late night thread necromancy just to show me
      yet another article by Watts, a blogger who makes it his trademark to
      confuse the difference between isolated data points and larger trends, is flattering, but you’re still failing to read critically and continuing to take your science from people who are apologists for polluting industrial giants. Good on you for your skepticism, Camron, and I look forward to some day seeing you direct some of it toward the snake oil salesman you keep citing as authorities.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Actually I just posted because I was prompted by Disqus that you had responded. Of course they were 8 months late, but just in case I went ahead and posted a slew of articles answering your question. If you take issue with them, post your argument (devoid of fallacies) and let’s talk about it like civilized people.

        By the way, I disagree with your assumptions and denouncement of my reading comprehension, but if it makes you feel better to attack the messenger, you just keep on exposing your inability to make a cogent argument without resorting to trite and boorish ad hominem attacks. It just presents that you are compensating in some manner by doing so.

        Apologists? Snake Oil Salesmen? Come on man, deal with the facts, you are a GT alum yes? Is it true that it’s devoled to nothing more than a DOD feeding trough, for who logic is secondary to profit and the almighty will of the Miltary Industrial Complex?

        Why not pop on by the Earth and Atmospheric Science Department and rap with Judith Curry. Surely her knowledge surpasses ours and yet she often sides with Mr. Watts on climate change issues. Perhaps it is the plank in your own eye that requires attention.

        Also necromancy is not my bag baby ;)

        • Reasor

          I’ll take your word for it that thread necromancy is not your thing, but you have to cop to the fact that throwing the words “ad hominem” around while questioning the competence and integrity of anyone who disagrees with you is. I’ll drop the sarcasm when you will.

          My argument is posted. The Watts article, and the blog that it cites, are easily dispensed with. Pointing out the existence of atmospheric activity which is inherently connected to the warming of the oceans does nothing to prove that the warming of the oceans has no effect on climate.

          I’m not a Georgia Tech alumnus, if that’s what you mean by the abbreviation “GT.” I have no idea what Georgia Tech did to earn a place on your shitlist, nor do I care.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            So let’s reset since you obviously want to keep debating this.
            When you question why the polar ice caps are melting, to what degree are you implying and what is your source? Let’s be scientific about this shit :)

          • Reasor

            I ended the debate. You’ve responded with nothing but evasion. Reset, my ass.

            Having made a sarcastic point, eight months ago, that climate change deniers cannot explain visible, undeniable evidence of climate change is not the same thing as questioning why the polar ice caps are melting. There is no debate, there is no implication, there is settled science and observable, photographable confirmation. The polar ice caps have melted faster in last 20 years than in the last 10,000. What is my source? Fuck you, tonight’s argument started with you posting an article acknowledging that the ice was disappearing, you troll.

            Be evasive, then. Tell me the satellites that shot the before and after photos of Greenland are in on whatever scheme you think has co-opted the world’s climatologists. Tell me about some other shadowy cabal you think I’m in cahoots with. I’ve ceased to care. You have convinced me that a coherent, civilized conversation is the farthest thing from your area of interest.

          • Reasor

            What’s my source? This argument started with you posting an article acknowledging that the ice had melted!

        • Reasor

          I’ll take you at your word that thread necromancy is not your bag, but surely you have to cop to the fact that throwing the words “ad hominem” around while questioning the competence and the agenda of anyone who disagrees with you is most definitely “your bag.” I’ll drop the sarcasm the day you do.

          If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the fact that you think your act isn’t easy to see through and the fact that you have difficulty seeing through the act of a pro-industry propagandist like Watts are two sides of the same coin. Your implication that a university unrelated to this argument is compromised by the Military Industry Complex, given what you’re pulling by bringing that specific Watts article into this, shows an astounding lack of self-awareness.

          My argument is posted. The Watts article that you posted with the commentary that it was “study material,” along with the college blog entry that it cites as a source, are easily dispensed with. Citing atmospheric activity which is inherently linked to the warming of the oceans does nothing to remove the warming of the oceans from the climate change picture.

          I am not an alumnus of Georgia Tech, if that’s what you mean by the abbreviation “GT.” I have no idea what Georgia Tech did to earn a place on your shitlist, nor do I care.

    • Reasor

      In the article that you cite, Camron, the research team are quoted as saying
      that it’s too early to say whether 2012′s unusually warm jet stream
      (which Sheffield University’s blogger disconnects from the warming
      ocean, demonstrating a lack of understanding of what the jet stream is)
      is anomalous.

      Performing late night thread necromancy just to show me
      yet another article by Watts, a blogger who makes it his trademark to
      confuse the difference between isolated data points and larger trends, is flattering, but you’re still failing to read critically and continuing to take your science from people who are apologists for polluting industrial giants. Good on you for your skepticism, Camron, and I look forward to some day seeing you direct some of it toward the snake oil salesman you keep citing as authorities.

  • Anarchy Pony

    Wow, watts up with that. That sure is a reputable source.

  • a name

    I couldn’t find that chart (or anything like it) on the NOAA site and your links don’t lead me any where helpful. I did find this on the home page of the NOAA though: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/9

    • personDUDE

      The chart might have been made by the author of The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism using data from the records archive held by the NOAA. Just cause the chart wasn’t created by the NOAA, doesn’t mean it isn’t based off accurate data held by the NOAA.

    • notlurking

      Yes I agree the chart seems to be made up, but then they link to NOAA to give them some credibility. What a joke.

    • Kevin Leonard

      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

      Table of records listing the source as the National Climate Data Center, largely corroborating the colorful chart at the top of this page.

  • Haystack

    What’s there to explain? Climate change isn’t supposed to turn Earth into a desert planet. Scientists are only predicting something like 2 or 3 degrees’ increase in global temperature; the concern is that that much additional energy, being absorbed into the atmosphere, will be sufficient to dramatically alter climate patterns and lead to more extreme weather events. The hurricane hitting New York right now? That’s the beef.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      How about reading the entire article before commenting and then answering your own questions. Did you even read the article? You can’t pin every storm on “Climate Change” which by the way has been proven time and again to not exacerbate storms that is just PR/opaganda you are repeating.

      • Calypso_1

        I read the entire article and I don’t see anything in it that specifically addressed Haystack’s points:
        1) Climate change not turning Earth into a desert. 2) 2-3° predicted long term temp increase. 3) Increased energy in atmospheric systems capable of altering climate patterns leading to extreme weather events. 4) Storms that are trending towards outliers.

        Frankly, statements in this article such as “Two-thirds of state high-temperature records were set prior to 1960, countering claims that the recent decade was ‘the warmest ever’”, simply show the sheer statistically innumeracy of the vast majority of consumers of this kind of propaganda. That you and this article address the presence of political propaganda & PR in how climate change is presented is irrelevant. The data is real; that it has to be presented to a woefully scientifically illiterate populace through standard mechanisms of government mouthpieces is unfortunate but to be expected.

        I’m not going to site the data because I know how you are. You have your belief, you’ll
        disagree regardless of what is presented and you simply will not understand the
        information in any terms outside of that belief (despite any claims to the contrary, demands
        to be told answers, and outright refusal to accept the suggestion that further understanding might require more knowledge than you possess). It has been a futile effort to date.

        Finally I will say this. In my opinion it is really bad form to be the primary critic of the
        people that leave comments on your own article. You can add to the discussion, clarify, etc but bashing everybody that doesn’t agree with you or the article, referring to them as trolls, stooges etc. does not represent your viewpoints well. I have enjoyed as of late the apparent evolution of your self-presentation here as a more well rounded, humorous personality, but this regression simply evokes the desire not to even bother reading articles or comments that you post.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          First of all I’m not the strawman you’ve erected so I’m not going to waste time fighting your projections. Second of all if you want to debate the science feel free to do so, you can’t just say, “oh everyone else is far too simple to understand it so it would be a pointless exercise to demonstrate that I myself have a cogent grasp of the nature of the theories and evidence on either side, I will just smugly present a paradigm I can’t really maintain under scrutiny and expect everyone will be intimidated by my bombastic logorhea.

          Put up or shut up Calypservice.

          Let’s go point by point.
          What proof do you have that CO2 is driving temperature change? Provide your sources and explain your position if you want to entertain this discussion with me. Otherwise you are contributing nothing but rampant projection of your own psyce onto me, again. You are my number one (stalker) fan after all right…..

          Also I will post on whatever I see fit. On a side note, I’m curious, you still believe Building 7 came down the way the government told you it did? Kind of a sychophantic litmus test, you know physics, gravity, law of conservation of momentum. Real simple stuff smart ass, last I checked you worked for the government so it’s unsurprising you would tow their line.

          Now let’s get back to the climate science. Why should we believe big bad CO2 (you know plant food) is responsible for “climate change”. Provide your sources and argumentation.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Notice he uses the disclaimer “I’m not going into all the details”. It’s because you can’t and you know it. I’ve called your bluff you silly bitch. Either man up or shut the fuck up with your endless pre madonna belly acheing.

          • TennesseeCyberian

            What’s with all this “silly bitch” business? Are we on a fucking fratboy forum here?

            Not helpful.

            And unless you are talking about Madonna before she became the world’s most popular slut–or maybe the mother Mary before the Church got ahold of her–I think you meant “prima donna.”

          • Calypso_1

            Does this mean I’m not bearing the Christ Child?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Thanks for the typo check. Lypso plays the same game time and again. He is welcome to prove he is more than a silly bitch and answer my question.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          I didn’t bash anyone. You attacked me. Passive aggressive cuntiness from a serial troll, varnished in bluster and the confidence only anonymity can maintain….

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        His question was “What’s there to explain”. This is why he needs to read the article before commenting because it is made very clear therein.

  • Andrew

    It’s the hottest late October I can remember where I live. Give this cherry-picking bullshit to the survivors of hurricane Sandy.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Oh lordy. The stooges always anonymous and available when the dogma of the new climate change religions is questioned. Is the IPCC a more reputable source? How about Al Gore, does he get extra credit for a peace prize and an Oscar. How about we give Obama another War is Peace Prize or shit why not give it to a non person like the EU. Notice Andrew can’t discuss the data presented. Typical.

      • Daniel Reasor

        Hi, Camron. why are the polar ice caps melting?

      • Andrew

        Notice Mr. Wiltshire falls back on variations of ad hominem and straw men whenever his data is shown to be lacking, inaccurate, or irrelevant. Typical.

        • http://www.ContraControl.com/ Zenc

          Classic misdirection with a side of ad hominem. ;)

          Whenever I see you guys detailing each other’s logical fallacies (or join in the practice myself), I think of a cute little short story by Max Shulman called “Love is a Fallacy”.

          http://www1.asknlearn.com/ri_Ilearning/English/631/elang-ilearning/page3a.htm

          • Calypso_1

            When coon skin coats were the rage our hill brethren must
            have been able to make some extra Christmas cash in addition to the intake from
            hog butcherin & ginseng gatherin.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          It’s not an Ad hominem when you are in fact anonymous. I also don’t see you dealing with what I have said. Do you feel that Al Gore’s peace price is validated? What of Obama’s? What of Kissinger? See the pattern emerging. Some supposed authority grants a shiny award and no matter how many they murder, the shiny pretense gives them the illusion of sanctity in the eyes of the ignorant and dull masses.

          Please show me where my data is lacking Andrew. It’s easy to throw out pseudo rejoinders but can you back anything up yourself. Show me where “my” data is lacking silly.

          • Andrew

            Anyone who can read can clearly see that it is you, Camron, who has dealt out the most insults and name calling in this thread, by far, and anyone who regularly visits this site knows it has been that way for a while. Shaming people who don’t accept every jot and tittle of the most far fetched conspiracy theories you can find doesn’t count as wisdom.

            Anyway, I’ve never considered Nobels as proof of climate change, and frankly the question is a red herring. Obama and Kissinger are war criminals, and Gore is a gatekeeper for the environmental movement–he lobbied Kyoto to keep emission cuts low.

            Where the data in this graph is lacking has been pointed out pretty clearly elsewhere in this thread, most succinctly by neurolux. It’s cherry picking designed to distract. Also, focusing on CO2 (as fake environmentalist Gore does) is a form of cherry picking. It’s not the only greenhouse gas by far. Deforestation and ocean acidification have at least as much to do with climate change as air pollution.

            Are you open-minded enough to consider the possibility that human industrial activity is having an effect on the climate?

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Sandy has nothing to do with “climate change”. This is stoogieish as it
          presumes that storms of any consequence must all have been magnified
          because of unchecked AGW. Case in point. http://wattsupwiththat.com/201

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Sandy has nothing to do with “climate change”. This is stoogieish as it presumes that storms of any consequence must all have been magnified because of unchecked AGW. Case in point. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/26/brad-johnsons-malfeasance-masquerading-as-idiocy/

  • neurolux

    This is a map of outlying events. It says nothing about trends.

    • Liam_McGonagle

      Indeed.
      The real point is that polar icecaps are nearly gone, radically changing the geothermal dynamics that drive extreme weather events of all kinds, but particularly the graphic wind and water storms that are currently *ss raping the east coast of the U.S. It’s about systems, not isolated datapoints taken out of context.

      • Marklar_Prime

        But AGW is based upon nothing but isolated data points taken out of context, next!

    • Marklar_Prime

      All of the data over the last 500 years constitutes outlying events in a system that is many millions of years old.

  • honu

    yes…and…so…what? As another poster wrote, it’s about the trends. Just because the highest record temperatures are from different years doesn’t tell the story of the decade after decade trend of higher overall global temperature. And why is it that this is even an argument at all? 97% of scientists that study this information agree that global warming is a phenomenoa and that man’s activites have a strong contribution. Even if we take the near 100% agreement by global warming scientists that this is a reality out of the equation, where’s the beef in just doing what would seem common sense? We live in a biosphere. The atmosphere holds in all the expulsions of gas and other elements we spew into it which affects all of us. It’s like blowing smoke into a balloon. How about we just agree that it’s actually intelligent to consider that polluting our finite livable air, land and water is the wrong thing to do. It’s really not that much of a stretch of the mind to accept. Unless of course you’re on the side of corporate interests which want to continue their polluting activities and which also often fund research, refuting global warming studies. The fact that this issue has become so politicized is pathetic. America is the only first world country to argue against it. F’ing stupid.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Notice that many of the highest temperatures are from GASP! The 30′s, 40′s, and 50′s. Even if Co2 were to be feared (which there is no reason to whatsoever, nor any conclusive proof by that it does lead to any massive increase in temperature period) it is demonstrated here that natural fluctuations in temperature have existed that trump modern high temperatures, but if you had read the article you would have realized this and not waste everyone’s time with your red herring. Climate changes, but it aint AGW that we need to be worried about. It’s a scam to enact carbon trading schemes.

      • Godozo

        And you know what happened during the thirties? The Great Depression. Lots of factories closed up, leading to a dropoff in particulates and CO2 going up into the air. The particulates drop off and the CO2 stays up, leading to an increase in heat. Same thing started happening in the eighties after the amount of pollution dropped off.

        There’s a similar peak in the early fifties, after the world war when the war machines wound down. The electrification of European train systems (and the Soviet Train systems in response) and deiselization of the trains in America also lowered the amount of particulate matter thrown into the air, leading to the mid-fifties highs you’re so fond of talking about.

        And as for the forties…don’t tell that to the Germans. They launched themselves into Russia just in time to go through one of the worst winters the Soviet Union had ever suffered. Indeed, those four years until the German defeat in the hands of the Soviets were much colder than normal. A similar thing happened as the United States exported their industries to China for a few extra bucks for the likes of Romney and the Walton Children: steady temperatures with even a dropoff in the late 2000s. The recent slowdown and attempts at cleaning up the environment there have had enough of an effect to let temperatures increase in the past year (and trust me, not even 1995 or 1999 was as bad, heat-wise, as this last year.

        So, in short: We’ve been experiencing AGW for at least the last hundred years…and not all of it in one direction.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          First of all there is no proof that CO2 is driving climate. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/

          Second of all there wasn’t nearly the infrastructure in existence to produce the emissions you are imagining at that period. So not only does what you say make no sense, it supposes that CO2 is driving “climate change” even though hotter temperature records were set during a period with substantially less capability of creating it in a capacity to have an effect in the first place, which again is a fallacious argument because you have not proven that CO2 is in fact driving temperature.

          Have you ever studied the little ice age or medieval warm periods before? Were these natural fluctuations more severe than even the worst predictions of the IPCC or not?

          AGW is a theory which for many is taken as gospel.

          • dethbunny

            You haven’t proven that it’s not, either. The only factual (non-speculative) information you have provided is the initial “record temperatures” data. Everything else has been saying effectively “it’s a theory with no proof” in much the same way a person would assert that evolution is a theory. Science doesn’t prove things. It tries to disprove them, and if it can’t, assumes the thing is likely true.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            I’ve been presenting evidence for a long time and harangued by many of the same head in the sand finger in the ear types here. So I am addressing that audience. If you would like to see evidence I would be happy to present it. Do you? Unlike many of the dolts here I would never assume you to take anything at face value as that is the path to mental slavery and suffering.

          • Godozo

            1: Did I say CO2 was the ONLY thing driving climate change? No. You’re the one working to ignore that I mentioned the effect of particulates in cooling the climate (and, for that matter, Sulfer Dioxide, which I should have directly mentioned before).

            2: “The Little Ice Age” (which is considered by some of the more extreme AGW believes as an effect of the sudden depopulation of the Americas before the settlement of the Europeans) and “Medieval Warm Period (a localized effect, mainly because of the effect of the Gulf Stream on England and the Scandinavian Countries)” have nothing to do with the past century. They were indeed sun-driven events. The difference being that in the past two hundred years industrialism has entered into the equation and thrown up CO2 into the air INDEPENDENT of whatever effects the sun may have had.

            3: I’m very much aware that most climatologists view the warming before 1940 as sun-driven. I, however, find it interesting that it’s the mid-thirties that that map shows as having the most record highs; one would have thought that the high would have between 1940-1945 (complete with delay for echo warming) had it just been the sun without any possible shift from human activities (as you’ve been positing). But your map shows NONE. Ergo, I’m willing to say the dropoff in aerosols from the great depression led (at least in part) to the mid-thirties temperature peak, and that WWII put up enough aerosols to create global cooling effects. Human Caused (or at least Human-Linked) Climate Change.

            As for your sideswipe that AGW is a mystical truth to those who don’t follow your reasoning (I’m assuming you were being “kind” with that last swipe, and corrected it), I’ve read plenty – from both sides. Should I find I’ve been wrong about Human-Caused Climate Change, I’ll change my mind. But right now, I see no reason to do so.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            1: Did I say CO2 was the ONLY thing driving climate change?

            CW: Well what are you arguing is driving “climate change”? Provide your sourcing and post away.

            2: “The Little Ice Age” (which is considered by some of the more extreme
            AGW believes as an effect of the sudden depopulation of the Americas
            before the settlement of the Europeans) and “Medieval Warm Period (a
            localized effect, mainly because of the effect of the Gulf Stream on
            England and the Scandinavian Countries)” have nothing to do with the
            past century. They were indeed sun-driven events. The difference being
            that in the past two hundred years industrialism has entered into the
            equation and thrown up CO2 into the air INDEPENDENT of whatever effects
            the sun may have had.

            Wow…. So you really believe that a sudden depopulation is what lead to an abrupt change in climate in pre industrial times. Now I have heard everything.

            If Industrialism is in fact driving “climate change” by what mechanism do you suppose this is supposedly occuring? I’m assuming CO2. Keep in mind it has never been proven that CO2 is driving temperature change and in fact is shown demonstrably to follow temperature change. Therefore it is illogical to presume that industrial activity is responsible for “climate change”.

            Read this!!

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/

            Start with that and tell me why anyone should fear a minute enhancement of a trace gas in the atmosphere (.035%) which is dwarfed in comparitively by water vapor for green house activation and is directly linked to increased food production. Also even though it does not drive climate and again this has been demonstrated beyond doubt and if you disagree prove me wrong, warm temperatures are connected to great boons in human progress and advancement due to greater health, cold is associated decreased food production, thus immunity, which suppresses human advancement. Warmth is associated with increased food yields, health and productivity.

            Why then should we fear any warming trend and blame it on trace gas which could not possibly be responsible? This is where Qui Bono yields the Occams Razor reduction that it’s a giant scheme to enact global taxation on air basically. People are so brainwashed they are fighting and screaming for their slavery and resist information which demonstrates they had been duped. They would rather be slaves then admit they were manipulated and played for suckers.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            1: Did I say CO2 was the ONLY thing driving climate change?

            CW: Well what are you arguing is driving “climate change”? Provide your sourcing and post away.

            2: “The Little Ice Age” (which is considered by some of the more extreme
            AGW believes as an effect of the sudden depopulation of the Americas
            before the settlement of the Europeans) and “Medieval Warm Period (a
            localized effect, mainly because of the effect of the Gulf Stream on
            England and the Scandinavian Countries)” have nothing to do with the
            past century. They were indeed sun-driven events. The difference being
            that in the past two hundred years industrialism has entered into the
            equation and thrown up CO2 into the air INDEPENDENT of whatever effects
            the sun may have had.

            Wow…. So you really believe that a sudden depopulation is what lead to an abrupt change in climate in pre industrial times. Now I have heard everything.

            If Industrialism is in fact driving “climate change” by what mechanism do you suppose this is supposedly occuring? I’m assuming CO2. Keep in mind it has never been proven that CO2 is driving temperature change and in fact is shown demonstrably to follow temperature change. Therefore it is illogical to presume that industrial activity is responsible for “climate change”.

            Read this!!

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/

            Start with that and tell me why anyone should fear a minute enhancement of a trace gas in the atmosphere (.035%) which is dwarfed in comparitively by water vapor for green house activation and is directly linked to increased food production. Also even though it does not drive climate and again this has been demonstrated beyond doubt and if you disagree prove me wrong, warm temperatures are connected to great boons in human progress and advancement due to greater health, cold is associated decreased food production, thus immunity, which suppresses human advancement. Warmth is associated with increased food yields, health and productivity.

            Why then should we fear any warming trend and blame it on trace gas which could not possibly be responsible? This is where Qui Bono yields the Occams Razor reduction that it’s a giant scheme to enact global taxation on air basically. People are so brainwashed they are fighting and screaming for their slavery and resist information which demonstrates they had been duped. They would rather be slaves then admit they were manipulated and played for suckers.

          • Godozo

            1: Did I say CO2 was the ONLY thing driving climate change? No. You’re the one working to ignore that I mentioned the effect of particulates in cooling the climate (and, for that matter, Sulfer Dioxide, which I should have directly mentioned before).

            2: “The Little Ice Age” (which is considered by some of the more extreme AGW believes as an effect of the sudden depopulation of the Americas before the settlement of the Europeans) and “Medieval Warm Period (a localized effect, mainly because of the effect of the Gulf Stream on England and the Scandinavian Countries)” have nothing to do with the past century. They were indeed sun-driven events. The difference being that in the past two hundred years industrialism has entered into the equation and thrown up CO2 into the air INDEPENDENT of whatever effects the sun may have had.

            3: I’m very much aware that most climatologists view the warming before 1940 as sun-driven. I, however, find it interesting that it’s the mid-thirties that that map shows as having the most record highs; one would have thought that the high would have between 1940-1945 (complete with delay for echo warming) had it just been the sun without any possible shift from human activities (as you’ve been positing). But your map shows NONE. Ergo, I’m willing to say the dropoff in aerosols from the great depression led (at least in part) to the mid-thirties temperature peak, and that WWII put up enough aerosols to create global cooling effects. Human Caused (or at least Human-Linked) Climate Change.

            As for your sideswipe that AGW is a mystical truth to those who don’t follow your reasoning (I’m assuming you were being “kind” with that last swipe, and corrected it), I’ve read plenty – from both sides. Should I find I’ve been wrong about Human-Caused Climate Change, I’ll change my mind. But right now, I see no reason to do so.

      • honu

        again I say to you….yes…and…so…what. You have not addressed the issue of industrial pollution and its effects on this planet so if you want to stay stuck on historical temperature fluctuations that btw, still indicate a general warming trend…not small 10 year isolated trends that may show a slight downward in temperature but the larger timeline, then we can have a conversation about this article that is, in fact, the red herring you accuse me of presenting.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Non sequitur. We are talking about AGW. Obviously pollution sucks, but sequestering Co2 through mindless inefficient boondoggles which do nothing to aid in removing pollution but do allow the government complete dominance of energy production is insanity.. When you say a general warming trend you are describing which period exactly? Do you think we can ignore pre industrial revolution temperature records in ascertaning the variety of natural temperature fluctuation?

          • dethbunny

            Okay, multiple people have tried to explain this to you and been met with sarcasm or indifference. I’ll try one more time: look up the definition of weather, then climate. It’s the difference between a paper cut and chronic pain. It’s the difference between a camera flash and daylight. A single “high temperature event” does not in any way disprove temperature trends and trying to equate them is blatantly dishonest.

            Now seriously, re-read the replies to this post, and how you’ve handled them. Quit being a dick. There’s a reason you’ve been downvoted all over, and it’s not some conspiracy.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            @dethbunny:disqus , What evidence do you have that there is a decided warming trend? Peer pressure tactics aside let’s talk facts. If you can do that you will see I’ve nothing “sarcastic” to say to you at all. Do you have any facts to discuss or are you just hopping on the bandwagon of feel good ignorance? Ignorance meaning to ignore. PS> I don’t care about someone upvoting or down voting. I care about the facts. PC rhetoric and group think control measures are for pussies.

          • dethbunny
          • Kevin Leonard

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png

            I find it interesting that the sharpest increase in fossil emissions occurred between 1950 and 1974, yet the temperatures remained relatively unchanged.

          • dethbunny

            Yeah, it is. There’s lots of data to figure out. My personal belief is that our understanding of the environment is much like our understanding of the human body. We can see overall trends and correlate input with results, but much of the overall function is still a black box.

            The most plausible explanation that I’ve read is that generally fossil fuel emissions take two forms, particulate and gas. Gases hold heat in, while particulates black incoming energy as well. Particulates precipitate out of the atmosphere while gases take longer to be removed. As such, we see a net cooling at times of heavy emissions, then a spike after as the particulates leave the air but the gases stick around.

            This is a potential explanation, and it makes sense to me, but I’m not a scientist who has spent years on this. What is undeniable is that temperatures have traded higher on average, and we (humans) have put a large amount of stuff into the air that ain’t there before.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Curious you draw a parallel to the human body for me, as I am a healthcare practitioner. I think the only thing we are really good at is measuring it. Saying we understand it and know what is good for it has proven troublesome.

            I agree wholeheartedly that what we are doing to our environment is making us sick. I recycle and ride my bicycle because I like clean air and don’t like contributing to landfills. But just as in medicine, where one day the consensus is that fats are bad for us… wait, now certain types are good for us… eggs are bad… well, no they’re not; I don’t feel we can say with certainty that man is causing global warming. The opposing evidence is strong enough to give me pause.

            And there is a political climate (pun intended) which makes it problematic for media and scientists to speak against AGW. In the past, this rhetoric which parallels “you are either with us, or you are against us” and if you are against, you are a terrorist, has lead us to some dark places, IMO. That is enough to give me pause, as well.

          • TennesseeCyberian

            Kevin, I agree whole-heartedly. While my scientific credentials are behind yours, I am familiar enough with the cloud of forced conformity which hangs over this topic to be highly skeptical of the ridicule and ostracism that comes from the proponents of man-made global warming.

            You’re right, it’s too complex to compare to something as simplistic a greenhouse.

            But like you, I’m a bike-riding, latte-sipping hippie-face who collects recycleable garbage around the house to do my part for the planet, and more importantly, to assauge my guilt and boost my self-esteem. See you at the coffee shop.

          • http://www.facebook.com/rthoneunomia.celine Threedinium

            I actually think there’s a vote fairy that just randomly presses up or down without reading anything at all, just to fuck with us.

          • VaudeVillain

            Hail Eris.

          • http://www.facebook.com/rthoneunomia.celine Threedinium

            I actually think there’s a vote fairy that just randomly presses up or down without reading anything at all, just to fuck with us.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      By the way your cherished 97% statisic is meaningless. Please stop clinging to it like a fundamentalist preaching the second coming.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

      What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?

      Guest Post by Barry Woods

      I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ’97% of scientists’
      (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give
      weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have
      any idea of the actual source of this soundbite.

      Perhaps a few may say the ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the
      most common references for this ’97% of active climate scientists’
      phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the
      actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey.

      “This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.”

      (‘Doran Survey’ participant)

      In a world where politicians (UK) went to war in Iraq based on a
      ‘sexed’ up dodgy dossier plagiarised from a 12 year old PhD thesis. I
      wonder how confident they would be lecturing the public about the
      need for radical decarbonising economic climate polices, if they were
      aware that the ’97% of active climate scientists’ quote/soundbite
      actually comes from a students MSc thesis, that the Doran EoS paper
      cites?

      Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that
      actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc
      thesis:

      “..scientific
      issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not,
      at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually
      resides..”

      “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

      “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will
      undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey!
      I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

      I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or
      scientists) that have used the phrase ’97% of climate scientists, have
      actually read the original source of the cited survey.

      “Climate is a very complex system with many variables
      including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other
      factors that we are not even aware of.

      There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the
      IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not,
      but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is
      interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

      The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past,
      where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75
      out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97%
      figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even
      the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of
      many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here

      A closer look at ‘The Consensus on the Consensus’

      Yet, I’m not aware of anyone having a detailed look at the actual
      reference for the ’97%’ quotation cited in the Doran EoS paper – (link and press release), this was a students MSc thesis entitled “The Consensus on the Consensus” – M Zimmermann (download here for £1.25 / ~$2), who was Peter Doran’s graduate student (and the EoS paper’s co-author)

      “..and I do not think that a consensus has anything
      to do with whether a hypothesis is correct. Check out the history of
      science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by
      ignoring the ‘consensus..’” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

  • TennesseeCyberian

    For Cameron, or any other climate change skeptic:

    Let’s say that the man-made climate change frenzy is hype. There were those leaked emails that show that climate scientists are willing to lie, so I am open to the possibility that the whole thing is overblown. Those of us who are not educated on the finer points of climate science have to take it on faith that the experts we believe are telling the truth.

    Here is what I do know, which leads to my question to you:

    Car exhaust stinks. It fills our blood with carbon minoxide, singes our lungs with NO and NO2, it is filled with malicious fine particles that can potentially knock out key genetic codes and lead to nasty tumors, and besides all that, heavy traffic is a fucking drag. Coal-burning plants and oil refineries also fill the air with similar pollutants, with the addition of sulfur dioxide, arsenic, and mercury. Continual encroachment upon the natural environment and our close proximity to the airbourne byproducts of technological civilization will obviously leave a swath of dead trees and withered lungs, no doubt about it.

    So even if the popular climate theories are totally wrong and we are headed for a global freeze, are these above facts not sufficient reasons to cut out the cars and cap emmissions on pollutants?

    • honu

      Thanks Tennessee, that’s exactly the point I try to make. I personally don’t care about the science so much as I care about the ramifications of mass ejections of pollutants on, above and into the earth. For that reason alone I have to wonder what the agenda is for those who want to deny climate change.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        What is the agenda for those who manipulate science to create an alarmist threat to enable the world’s largest form of taxation on energy production?

        • honu

          What’s the agenda of you trying to constantly debunk the 97% of the world’s scientists who agree about global warming? We can go back and forth with the accusatory questions but I would like you to respond accordingly to my comment above.

        • honu

          What’s the agenda of you trying to constantly debunk the 97% of the world’s scientists who agree about global warming? We can go back and forth with the accusatory questions but I would like you to respond accordingly to my comment above.

      • Kevin Leonard

        The “ramifications of mass ejections of pollutants on, above and into the earth” is science. You cannot separate the two.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Not at all. It presumes that these factors cannot be mitigated in other ways. It presumes we need give the government the ability to create a system of regulation that would extend over energy production throughout the world. In reality this would have zero impact on controlling temperature and would only serve to give inefficient by nature bureaucracies more power through fear marketing and alarmism. The War on Terra if you will. We don’t need to give this power up to anyone as there are alternatives to dealing with pollution. Just like we don’t need DHS to fight a non existent boogeyman in the form of AlQuaeda.

      Think of the amount of money involved, look at how Gore has profited, 100 million richer since he left office and started this crusade against man bear pig. Did you know his film was found to have at least 9 major errors in a Brittish court? Do you know they show this film for college credit in America and throughout the world. It’s this type of PR that creates the foundation for sweeping changes and theft and one need only study the science to see what a scam it is. Are you willing to study? I can provide information but you have to be willing to spend the hours getting comfortable with it. This is not an issue we can rely on the mainstream media to tell us fact from fiction. We have to employ our own critical thinking skills and yes connect the dots with modern analogs of mass deception. Otherwise it is a pointless back and forth of traded sound bytes.

      • TennesseeCyberian

        I understand the issue from the perspective of anti-government and anti-globalist concerns. If that is your primary concern, I urge you to highlight that aspect as you did in this comment. The “climate change denier” label is pretty damning these days, but not so much as the “libertarian” or “anti-globalist” labels. I’m not necessarily saying play to the crowd, but I think a lot of people see criticism of climate change science and immediately imagine that child-eating Moloch from Metropolis.

        While I think Phil Valentine is a loveable asshole who is carried more by his personality than his intellect, his roundly condemned movie An Inconsistent Truth did a good job of pointing out the hypocrisies of Al Gore and Co. That is as interesting if not more interesting to me than the climate science.

        The hypocrisy of the Left on this issue is undeniable.

    • Marklar_Prime

      Of course but by misdirecting the focus from real pollutants and environmental depredations the environmental movement is driven from the realm of relevance and into the role of useful idiots.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Exactly. Why is this so hard for others on this forum to comprehend?? You get it guys, you’re actually hampering real efforts towards dealing with pollution by believing in AGW and sacrificing real efforts towards helping Mother Nature, to “fight” the alarmist non threat. The irony is thick. I think it’s hilarious how when challenged to provide evidence to support their faith based alarmism and they cannot, they fall back on the assumption that any “climate denier” must have it out for Mother nature all together. They’ve taken the polemic bait hook line and sinker. You’d almost think that the AGW alarmists had hired PR firms to help establish their agenda and talking points. Oh wait, that is exactly what has happened. Check out James Hogan, not a scientist, a doucebag pr man for big corporations. That is whose pr drivel you are reciting by the way. Queue the whinyness, oooh Camron, just because your right doesn’t mean you have a right to call out those who attack you, waahhh you’re a meanie and not pc waaahhhh. Have Al Gore change your diapers already.

        • honu

          Do you honestly think that there’s no science behind global warming? I will concede that science is an evolving discipline and to give up our power and full acceptance of an issue without doing requisite study ourselves would put us in a slave mentality but for this particular issue I just don’t see the problem. Whether man made pollution is a large cause of the increase in global warming or a natural occuring warming trend, I think it’s logical to think that tossing toxins from industrialization about our biosphere is something that is only going to do us harm in the end. Working towards more self sustaining technologies and regulating them (yes regulation, sorry, but corporations aren’t going to do it themselves) is the only solution. The only thing you seem to say about AGW as conspiracy is that it’s….a conspiracy. Big @# deal. So government money goes to some think tanks and scientists and corporations studying it. I can think of a hell of alot worse things….assuming of course that your belief that global warming isn’t a result of man’s activities. And with the science, yes there’s science, I don’t think you make a convincing argument. Individual years and days of record temps doesn’t reflect the long term increase in temps globally. And one more thing Cam, stop being a whiny bitch about this. You posted it. You should have expected blowback and been better prepared to deal with it instead of belittling and making lame (very lame) snide comments about posters. Grow the hell up.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Honu. I was listening to you ramble on and on. Jumping from one idea to the next, patiently enduring your inability to understand the bigger picture as you argued for your religious belief in AGW. Which morphed into a conflation of AGW with fighting pollution when you found you were out of your depth with the actual science. I endured all of that and then you pulled out your clueless card and decided to name call. I make snide comments about dumbfucks like yourself who whine when their beliefs aren’t borne out by the evidence and then attack the person bringing contrary information as though their hypocrisy is somehow validated or takes the place of understanding the topic at hand. If you want to be a whiny bitch and avoid learning fine, but if you attack me I will explain why you are an imbecile and no amount of revisionist presumption removes the obvious which is you don’t know what you are talking about and yet still think everyone has to endure your own ignorant attacks on me for presenting what is only a different opinion. Anyone who reads through the comments will see that I am always attacked first and then respond in kind with evidence and yes sarcasm because frankly people who need to use ad hominem in lieu of evidence deserve to be ridiculed as they are collectively dragging down the conversation and thus the ability of people to rationally consider very important information which is negatively effecting their lives. I’ve called out everyone on this thread on their religious beliefs and because of that they choose your method which is to attack the messenger avoid the science and invoke fallacies such as appeal to authority. By the way the totally arbitrary and baseless 97% that is bandied about whenever I bring up the science which undercuts the alarmist stockholme syndrome here is based on a questionaire to scientists asking whether or not humans are having an effect on climate. That is it. It’s totally generic it has no precision, clarity or baseline and based on that small sample dumbasses like you repeat like an unthinking parrot a meaningless statistic because they need to believe they are on the right side of this debate.

            Here don’t take my word for it (I’m not Al Gore or the IPCC after all) Read and think.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

            What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?

            Guest Post by Barry Woods

            I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ’97% of scientists’
            (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give
            weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have
            any idea of the actual source of this soundbite.

            Perhaps a few may say the ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the
            most common references for this ’97% of active climate scientists’
            phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the
            actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey.

            “This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.”

            (‘Doran Survey’ participant)

            In a world where politicians (UK) went to war in Iraq based on a
            ‘sexed’ up dodgy dossier plagiarised from a 12 year old PhD thesis. I
            wonder how confident they would be lecturing the public about the
            need for radical decarbonising economic climate polices, if they were
            aware that the ’97% of active climate scientists’ quote/soundbite
            actually comes from a students MSc thesis, that the Doran EoS paper
            cites?

            Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that
            actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc
            thesis:

            “..scientific
            issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not,
            at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually
            resides..”

            “..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

            “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will
            undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey!
            I’m sorry I even started it!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

            I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or
            scientists) that have used the phrase ’97% of climate scientists, have
            actually read the original source of the cited survey.

            “Climate is a very complex system with many variables
            including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other
            factors that we are not even aware of.

            There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the
            IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not,
            but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is
            interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

            The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past,
            where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75
            out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97%
            figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even
            the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of
            many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here

            A closer look at ‘The Consensus on the Consensus’

            Yet, I’m not aware of anyone having a detailed look at the actual
            reference for the ’97%’ quotation cited in the Doran EoS paper – (link and press release), this was a students MSc thesis entitled “The Consensus on the Consensus” – M Zimmermann (download here for £1.25 / ~$2), who was Peter Doran’s graduate student (and the EoS paper’s co-author)

            “..and I do not think that a consensus has anything
            to do with whether a hypothesis is correct. Check out the history of
            science…you will find that scientific discovery is generally made by
            ignoring the ‘consensus..’” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

          “.. The Trenberth letter states: “Research shows that
          more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that
          climate change is real and human caused.” However, the claim of 97% support is deceptive. The surveys contained trivial polling questions that even we would agree with.
          Thus, these surveys find that large majorities agree that temperatures
          have increased since 1800 and that human activities have some impact.

          But what is being disputed is the size and nature of the human contribution to global warming. To claim, as the Trenberth letter apparently does, that disputing this constitutes “extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert” is peculiar indeed.” (Wall Steet Journal)

    • Talis

      One professor at one university in one country conducts an experiment,
      the results of which appear to have been obscured to some extent.

      This does not amount to a collapse of the scientific argument for climate change.

      I hope all the sceptics and their multinational
      corporate sponsors now let us see the contents of all their
      communication, in case anything is amiss.

  • nottingham

    that was a confusing graph. perhaps inverting the data would have made it clearer?

  • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/

    An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2”
    The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of
    events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to
    3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by
    global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and
    ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are
    found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to
    man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has
    shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans,
    only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and
    heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

    The highlights of the paper are:

    ► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to
    be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower
    troposphere.

    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

    ► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

    ► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

    The paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

    The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

  • emperorreagan

    Either the author of this article doesn’t understand the argument, he is intentionally cherry picking state maximum value data to argue against statements made with respect to mean data & deviation from mean, or he doesn’t understand basic statistics.

    NOAA reported, for example, that July 2012 was the hottest month on record in the US. “The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F.” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/7

    Sustained heat & changes in the hydrological cycle give you a dought. And droughts correlate to lower crop yields and to extreme events like wild fires. Sustained heat correlates to more extreme weather events in general. That doesn’t change whether you argue that the warming trend is a naturally occurring cycle or caused by an external forcing due to human activity.

    Besides not being relevant to the argument, the selection of state yearly maximum data is arbitrary for even arguing about extremes. Thousands of local daily maximum temperature records were set if you look at individual measurement sites. Looking at a single outlier is hardly how you analyze a data set.

    • Kevin Leonard

      Having the previous record set in 1936 doesn’t exactly lend credence to the straight-line warming trend postulate.

      Following links from the page you provided http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=tmp&month=6&year=2012&filter=12&state=110&div=0

      Looks like things dip pretty clearly from 1930 to 1980. Why draw that big red line? When I isolate that 50 year period (50 years!), it looks like a child drew it. Looks like they are selling something to me.

      • Calypso_1

        This again is where basic statistical knowledge is the deficit and not the presentation of data.
        The ‘big red line’ is simply the slope or ‘equation of least-squares’ provided by linear regression of the individual data points.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_squares

        In other words it is the average rate of change shown that best fits ALL the given data. What you see as a dip in a 50 year period is accounted for in the equation.

        That something to you “looks like a child drew it”, looks to someone who understands the information like a coupled oscillatory stochastic resonance following normal distribution.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Can’t answer my question Lypservice? Why is big bad CO2 going to end the world again? Where do you find it is conclusively linked to temperature increase? It’s a real simple question. Rather fundamental. If you can’t prove this, the rest of your arguments are based on conjecture alone it seems. I’ll be waiting for an answer.

      • emperorreagan

        Record(s) are irrelevant to a straight-line warming trend postulate. Long term trends don’t mean that there isn’t local variation. A long term trend doesn’t mean that there won’t be dips or plateaus in the data. My example was to point out how the chart cherry-picks data, rather than doing some sort of analysis on the larger available data set.

        Why did they draw the big red line? Because it’s a calculated trend line for this data set and likely what they were drawing attention to in associated papers and documents on the website that use this data.

        Is it selling something? Sure, in some sense. Scientists attempt to make their graphs looking pleasing and draw attention to the data that supports the points they’re making.

        In a broader sense, as in selling a lie to trick everyone into a carbon tax? The US government can’t even let tax cuts due to expire just expire. Anyone who believes that any amount of climate science would actually result in a carbon tax being passed is delusional.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Delusional because that is what they have been attempting to create the world over? Do you think GIM set up to not sell carbon credits? Is that why if you google “carbon credits” you have so many news articles and companies discussing the best methods for getting into this new market? How are you not delusional for ignoring this information? http://www.tradecarboncredits.org/

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Global News: Australia Passes Carbon Credit Law, CO2 Price is Next; Solar Could Match Coal’s Price by 2015 in China

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/23/300849/global-news-australia-passes-carbon-credit-law-co2-price-is-next-solar-could-match-coals-price-by-2015-in-china/?mobile=nc

            Maybe I’m hallucinating….

          • emperorreagan

            Australian policy is now US policy? Should we debate Tanzania’s energy policy? How is that relevant to whether the US federal government is going to take any action?

            How have the gasoline taxes in the UK or Germany influenced the US federal excise tax? Here’s a hint: the UK gas tax is nearly as much per gallon as we pay total.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Non sequitur. I was demonstrating that Cabon Credits are already being traded and forced upon populations.

          • emperorreagan

            Me: The US government will not pass a carbon tax.
            You: Carbon cap-and-trade schemes exist. Policy in other countries support such ventures.
            Me: The policies implemented in other countries are not US policy.

            Your argument does nothing to refute my statement about US federal policy. That cap-and-trade markets exist or some countries may pursue alternate energy and consumption strategies is irrelevant to US policy.

            Unless both the House and Senate undergo a drastic turn-over, the odds of a cap and trade bill or a carbon tax passing through the US body are slim-to-none.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            What I was establishing is their is precedence for Cap and Trade being forced on taxpayers. Also keep in mind no one thought NDAA or ObamaCare would pass either but when the whole system is a sham anything is possible.

          • emperorreagan

            I think you’re confusing pundits “playing up the drama for the 24-hour news cycle” for “no one thought they would pass.”

            Intrade had the odds at 80% for passage of the healthcare reform law prior to the House vote.

            Considering the vote margins on NDAA weren’t nearly as touchy as the healthcare law, I’m curious as to who thought it wouldn’t pass. Maybe people thought Obama would stick to his guns and veto it, but that would have been more hope than anything based in his previous performance.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            What I was establishing is their is precedence for Cap and Trade being forced on taxpayers. Also keep in mind no one thought NDAA or ObamaCare would pass either but when the whole system is a sham anything is possible.

          • emperorreagan

            Me: The US government will not pass a carbon tax.
            You: Carbon cap-and-trade schemes exist. Policy in other countries support such ventures.
            Me: The policies implemented in other countries are not US policy.

            Your argument does nothing to refute my statement about US federal policy. That cap-and-trade markets exist or some countries may pursue alternate energy and consumption strategies is irrelevant to US policy.

            Unless both the House and Senate undergo a drastic turn-over, the odds of a cap and trade bill or a carbon tax passing through the US body are slim-to-none.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Non sequitur. I was demonstrating that Cabon Credits are already being traded and forced upon populations.

        • Kevin Leonard

          Lest anyone be accused of cherry picking data sets, here is a larger one
          http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord.htm

          The irony is that I am a serious tree-hugger – like, literally have hugged trees. I would love nothing more than to put a halt to deforestation, to stop polluting the oceans and riverbeds, to end fracking, and to take a large chunk of money from our military and put it into renewable energy. But I don’t see any of that happening.

          If life on earth were in such danger because of rising CO2 levels, as AGW proponents say, why isn’t all of the above Priority One? Carbon tax? Please. That wouldn’t solve anything, anyway. Cap and trade? Again, not a solution. http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/whos-getting-rich-off-cap-and-trade/ I am too leary of propaganda machines and AGW has a big one.

          When I see governments forcing corporations to start making changes, instead of money, in response to what is supposedly a extinction-level event, I will believe them.

          • emperorreagan

            The political side of the debate is certainly confusing. When you look at where the money is, you see Koch, Exxon-Mobile, and many others spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against legislation and funding anti-climate change studies. On the other side, you find Goldman, GE, and others trying to monetize climate change through cap and trade and spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to support such legislation.

            I think human activity is a forcing factor. I think the problem, though, is that actual solutions run counter to deeply held cultural beliefs & values – the beliefs that (1) growth is good and (2) technology will save us. The notion of limits seems to be a foreign concept, in particular as economic activity has become increasingly an abstraction.

            Rather than actually break and force some reconsideration of fundamental values, you end up with absurdity – like the notion of energy independence and decreased oil costs through drilling. There’s not nearly enough oil to make up the shortfall in domestic production and what oil there is will still be priced on the global market.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Let’s say that an asteroid was heading toward earth and we actually saw it and had time to react. I would like to think that the governments of the world would get together and pull our resources to attempt to prevent the end of our species.

            Let’s say that AGW is happening and it will cause a runaway greenhouse effect by 2040. Why are we sitting on our hands?

            Cultural beliefs sounds like a bullshit excuse to me. We have technology now. Other countries are making great strides in alternative energy. Solar energy is starting to look good. We haven’t even begun to tackle wave and geothermal energy the way we could.

            Shortfall in domestic production? We exported more oil than we imported last year. Exxon Mobil is still a top earner in profits, bested only by Apple (last I heard). Why are we still subsidizing oil when we are letting our alt.energy subsidies slip away? So Billy Joe can fill up his Hummer for less than 100 bucks?

            It doesn’t add up. It is a dog and pony show. It is about money. It is always about money. Cui bono? Al Gore and associates, universities with their research grants; and grant recipients for independent climate change research and education. Those scientists don’t get paid as well without grants, and grants are being handed out to the ones who promote the status quo.

          • emperorreagan

            What in recent history suggests to you that the governments of the world would pull together to save the species? The world just went through a cold war where two major powers spent decades playing games of nuclear brinkmanship over political ideology and spheres of influence. The US didn’t ratify the Kyoto protocol – not because of an opposition to the science, but because it wasn’t fair that developing countries got a pass and because it would be hard on the US economy.

            The US is an enormous net importer of crude oil, but a net exporter of petroleum products. On the sum, the US is still a net importer of oil. The articles I’ve seen in papers this year play up the net petroleum products part but minimize or ignore the rest and don’t really seek to explain why it’s happening.

            If you have proof that the grant process used by government agencies is corrupt, then surely you’ll share it with the world. It’s a fairly extraordinary claim – scientists are on an NSF money train, dumping bad research on the world and getting more grants for their trouble.

          • Kevin Leonard
          • emperorreagan

            So a scientist who thinks his initial paper in 2001 was treated unfairly, who published a second paper on the topic in 2009 which he admits contained stupid mistakes, and has since resorted to publishing in less prestigious journals than he feels his work warrants after his paper was rejected by reviewers including two he personally selected.

            His theory is repeatedly shot down, so he labels everyone else “junk science.” He wants to participate in the policy side of the debate, but is upset when he gets called before congress and forced to defend his position.

            Sounds like sour grapes to me, not an indictment of the grant process.

            Also interesting that you reference a guy whose policy position is basically: Do nothing and save some money. If I’m wrong, you can just fix it 50 years down the road.

          • Kevin Leonard

            From:
            http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html

            Naysayers Not Wanted

            The fate of Bush appointee William Happer, a highly respected Princeton physicist, is symptomatic of Gore’s remaking of the bureaucracy. Happer had been asked to stay over until a new Assistant Secretary of Energy could be appointed, but he quickly ran afoul of Gore and his climate control group in the White House. Happer had initiated a research program to test the various ozone depletion theories then in vogue and had found that the empirical results were not matching the theory’s predictions. When he told a House committee that “there probably has been some exaggeration of the dangers of ozone and global climate change,” White House officials promptly fired him. Gore had already decided that ozone depletion would damage crops and increase the rate of skin cancer.

            ___

            A quick Google search on “climate change research grants” reveals that the first several results are all giving grant money based on a priori assumption that AGW theory is true.
            ___

            From:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

            A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in June 2007 that “There is a lot of money to be made in this… If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide’.”[192] Similar positions have been advanced by University of Alabama, Huntsville climate scientist Roy Spencer, Spencer’s University of Alabama, Huntsville colleague and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott,[193] Accuracy in Media,[194] and Ian Plimer in his 2009 book Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science.

            ____

            I’m really not inclined to go any further on this thread with you. As a lover of nature, I struggle with the issue. But there are enough questions to keep me from jumping on the bandwagon and ridiculing AGW skeptics. That is unlikely to change based on anything you say, and likewise, I doubt that I will change your mind.

          • Kevin Leonard

            From:
            http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2002/15.html

            Naysayers Not Wanted

            The fate of Bush appointee William Happer, a highly respected Princeton physicist, is symptomatic of Gore’s remaking of the bureaucracy. Happer had been asked to stay over until a new Assistant Secretary of Energy could be appointed, but he quickly ran afoul of Gore and his climate control group in the White House. Happer had initiated a research program to test the various ozone depletion theories then in vogue and had found that the empirical results were not matching the theory’s predictions. When he told a House committee that “there probably has been some exaggeration of the dangers of ozone and global climate change,” White House officials promptly fired him. Gore had already decided that ozone depletion would damage crops and increase the rate of skin cancer.

            ___

            A quick Google search on “climate change research grants” reveals that the first several results are all giving grant money based on a priori assumption that AGW theory is true.
            ___

            From:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

            A number of global warming skeptics, such as the following, assert that grant money is given preferentially to supporters of global warming theory. Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in June 2007 that “There is a lot of money to be made in this… If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide’.”[192] Similar positions have been advanced by University of Alabama, Huntsville climate scientist Roy Spencer, Spencer’s University of Alabama, Huntsville colleague and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott,[193] Accuracy in Media,[194] and Ian Plimer in his 2009 book Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science.

            ____

            I’m really not inclined to go any further on this thread with you. As a lover of nature, I struggle with the issue. But there are enough questions to keep me from jumping on the bandwagon and ridiculing AGW skeptics. That is unlikely to change based on anything you say, and likewise, I doubt that I will change your mind.

          • Kevin Leonard
          • emperorreagan

            What in recent history suggests to you that the governments of the world would pull together to save the species? The world just went through a cold war where two major powers spent decades playing games of nuclear brinkmanship over political ideology and spheres of influence. The US didn’t ratify the Kyoto protocol – not because of an opposition to the science, but because it wasn’t fair that developing countries got a pass and because it would be hard on the US economy.

            The US is an enormous net importer of crude oil, but a net exporter of petroleum products. On the sum, the US is still a net importer of oil. The articles I’ve seen in papers this year play up the net petroleum products part but minimize or ignore the rest and don’t really seek to explain why it’s happening.

            If you have proof that the grant process used by government agencies is corrupt, then surely you’ll share it with the world. It’s a fairly extraordinary claim – scientists are on an NSF money train, dumping bad research on the world and getting more grants for their trouble.

          • Kevin Leonard

            Let’s say that an asteroid was heading toward earth and we actually saw it and had time to react. I would like to think that the governments of the world would get together and pull our resources to attempt to prevent the end of our species.

            Let’s say that AGW is happening and it will cause a runaway greenhouse effect by 2040. Why are we sitting on our hands?

            Cultural beliefs sounds like a bullshit excuse to me. We have technology now. Other countries are making great strides in alternative energy. Solar energy is starting to look good. We haven’t even begun to tackle wave and geothermal energy the way we could.

            Shortfall in domestic production? We exported more oil than we imported last year. Exxon Mobil is still a top earner in profits, bested only by Apple (last I heard). Why are we still subsidizing oil when we are letting our alt.energy subsidies slip away? So Billy Joe can fill up his Hummer for less than 100 bucks?

            It doesn’t add up. It is a dog and pony show. It is about money. It is always about money. Cui bono? Al Gore and associates, universities with their research grants; and grant recipients for independent climate change research and education. Those scientists don’t get paid as well without grants, and grants are being handed out to the ones who promote the status quo.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            To what degree is “human activity a forcing factor” that is the important question to ask.

      • TennesseeCyberian

        It seems pretty clear that global temperatures are, on average, rising. And as I understand it, the polar ice caps are receding, even taking into account the annual cycles of melting and refreezing. Few people deny global warming, at least few that I know of. What is causing it is the question.

        The loudest voices say it’s cars and coal plants and factories. That may be true, but others say a massive volcano would dwarf man-made carbon output and presumably heat the planet significantly.

        And we have these guys, saying, “Not so.”

        http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/scienceshot-volcano-co2-emission.html

        As I said earlier, none of that changes the fact that cars and land development and suburban expansion and resource extraction are fucking humans up, as well as the planet.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      You are ignoring the Urban Heat Island effect. Also average national temperature versus global temp are completely different beasts. Again you have to understand that most weather stations are in and around concrete sinks and thus subject to up to 5˚ plus of temperature increase. Muller’s recent paper also did not account for this and thus was easily refuted because of this bias.

      You are the one actually not being relevant to the argument. The argument they make is the hyperbole of media is not borne out by the facts.

      • emperorreagan

        So NOAA data set is okay when it’s used to make the map of highs in the blog entry?

        The only data that counts is the maximum set as used to make that map from NOAA’s data, versus the broader data set?

        You’re injecting more factors unreferenced in the blog entry you posted rather than explaining why its point is valid.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Start spreading the news
    I’m leaving today
    I want to be a part of it,
    New York, New York . . .

  • someonesname

    WoW LOOK AT THAT DISINFORMATION!

  • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/

    ► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to
    be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower
    troposphere.

    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

    ► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

    ► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

    The paper:

    The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

    The ocean is degassing CO2 as it is cooked by the Sun.
    It’s demonstrated conclusively in this paper and countless others.

    The entire framework for “climate change” as supposedly driven by AGW is complete and utter bollocks.

    The sad part is the “literati” of society go along so that they too can join in the masochistic milieu and appear smart and snarky along with the pr heads espousing this new dogma.

    Don’t be a sheep. Read both sides and think for yourself.

    Again. WHO BENEFITS?? Qui Bono. Follow the Money.

  • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/important-paper-strongly-suggests-man-made-co2-is-not-the-driver-of-global-warming/

    ► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to
    be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower
    troposphere.

    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

    ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

    ► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

    ► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

    The paper:

    The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

    The ocean is degassing CO2 as it is cooked by the Sun.
    It’s demonstrated conclusively in this paper and countless others.

    The entire framework for “climate change” as supposedly driven by AGW is complete and utter bollocks.

    The sad part is the “literati” of society go along so that they too can join in the masochistic milieu and appear smart and snarky along with the pr heads espousing this new dogma.

    Don’t be a sheep. Read both sides and think for yourself.

    Again. WHO BENEFITS?? Qui Bono. Follow the Money.

  • Roger Mexico

    This data means basically nothing. I’m not anything remotely resembling a climatologist, so I’m staying completely out of discussion about the valdiity of scientific findings. But anyone with a 12th-grade science education can tell you that you don’t disprove a trend by citing one data point.
    I do read the newspapers enough to point out what the “scientific consensus” is and isn’t. The consensus is that a warming trend exists, it’s caused by humans changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and it’s plausibly significant enough to alter prevailing climate systems.
    What exactly is going to happen–including the question of how bad the problem will get–is, of course, speculation. We won’t “know” until it happens, and there’s substantial disagreement about what the most accurate predictive models are.

    So the question goes from science to politics at that point–what should we be doing now, knowing that we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen?

    Some people say “do nothing,” some people say “do whatever is necessary to prevent further growth in GHG emissions, and prioritize this goal above everything else,” some people say “we’re already fucked anyway” and then there’s a moderate middle ground that says we should be incentivizing emissions reductions while preparing for unknown climate events, but not at the expense of other priorities (like economic growth).