this is what happens during global warming. niagra falls freezes. We stay below freezing for so long lake ice over. This reminds me... a few years ago the great lakes were frozen for a long time. but don't worry... all this cold will be turned into warmth after they start manipulating the data.
don't worry, in a few months this will be turned into a warm period. and guys like future currents will be out there defending the data changes... and calling those who actually present science liars. https://apnews.com/87294705618f44c7...ly,-bone-chilling-cold-grips-wide-swath-of-US INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Dangerously cold temperatures blamed for at least nine deaths have wreaked havoc across a wide swath of the U.S., freezing a water tower in Iowa, halting ferry service in New York and leading officials to open warming centers even in the Deep South. The National Weather Service issued wind chill advisories and freeze warnings Tuesday covering a vast area from South Texas to Canada and from Montana through New England. more at the link...
The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century https://realclimatescience.com/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/ 100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century. The U.S. Has Been Overwhelmingly Hot This Year | Climate Central The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones. They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows. Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article. The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.) The hockey stick of adjustments since 1970 is due almost entirely to NOAA fabricating missing station data. In 2016, more than 42% of their monthly station data was missing, so they simply made it up. This is easy to identify because they mark fabricated temperatures with an “E” in their database. When presented with my claims of fraud, NOAA typically tries to arm wave it away with these two complaints. They use gridded data and I am using un-gridded data. They “have to” adjust the data because of Time Of Observation Bias and station moves. Both claims are easily debunked. The only effect that gridding has is to lower temperatures slightly. The trend of gridded data is almost identical to the trend of un-gridded data. Time of Observation Bias (TOBS) is a real problem, but is very small. TOBS is based on the idea that if you reset a min/max thermometer too close to the afternoon maximum, you will double count warm temperatures (and vice-versa if thermometer is reset in the morning.) Their claim is that during the hot 1930’s most stations reset their thermometers in the afternoon. This is easy to test by using only the stations which did not reset their thermometers in the afternoon during the 1930’s. The pattern is almost identical to that of all stations. No warming over the past century. Note that the graph below tends to show too much warming due to morning TOBS. NOAA’s own documents show that the TOBS adjustment is small (0.3°F) and goes flat after 1990. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_pg.gif Gavin Schmidt at NASA explains very clearly why the US temperature record does not need to be adjusted. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers. One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale – and they haven’t found any yet. NASA – NASA Climatologist Gavin Schmidt Discusses the Surface Temperature Record NOAA has always known that the US is not warming. U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com All of the claims in the Climate Central article are bogus. The US is not warming and 2016 was not a hot year in the US. It was a very mild year.
More lies. Can't even get past the first chart/lie. You are a professional liar. How much are they paying you to lie like this? "real"climate.com?!!! More like fakepaidforbythefossilfuelinterests.com. Why can't you EVER use a reliable trustworthy source? Liar
Goddard operates a blog titled “Real Science”, originally located at Real-Science.com, then at Stevengoddard.wordpress.com(until May, 2016), and now at Realclimatescience.com. [7], [8] Steven Goddard (pseudonym for Tony Heller) is a blogger and the publisher of "Real Science," a website he established to assert that concerns over anthropogenic global warming are exaggerated. Before establishing his own blog, Goddard built his reputation as a challenger to anthropogenic climate change theories through frequent postings on the Watts Up with That? blog.[1] Goddard wrote pseudonymously until 2014 when he revealed his true real identity on his blog.[2] He has a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Master's degree in electrical engineering from Rice University.[3] Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym. A search of Google Scholar for “Tony Heller” returned no results. https://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard So another unqualified industry whore. and still, NO publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming. How does that make you feel jerm? you pos liar
No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has embarked upon a witch-hunt against climate scientists at NOAA, accusing them of conspiring to fudge global temperature data. However, a new study has found that the adjustments NOAA makes to the raw temperature data bring them closer to measurements from a reference network of pristinely-located temperature stations. The adjustments are scientifically necessary Before delving into the new study, it’s worthwhile to revisit the temperature adjustments that Lamar Smith disputes. Volunteers have been logging measurements from weather stations around the world for over 150 years, and climate scientists use that data to estimate the Earth’s average surface temperature. But over a 150-year period, things change, as the authors of this study explain. Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record. To find out how much actual temperatures have changed, scientists have to filter out these changes in the way the measurements were taken. Those are the adjustments under attack from Lamar Smith. They’re important, scientifically justified, and documented in the peer-reviewed literature. So what’s the controversy about? Scientists make adjustments to account for changes in the way both land and ocean temperature measurements have been made over the past 150 years. The ocean adjustments make the biggest difference, and in fact they actually reduce the measured amount of global surface warming over the past century, as compared to the raw data. Thus you would think contrarians like Lamar Smith would appreciate these adjustments; however, over the past couple of decades, they act to very slightly increase the overall global surface warming trend. FacebookTwitterPinterest NOAA adjusted (green) and raw data (red). The dashed black line shows the difference created by the adjustments. Illustration: Zeke Hausfather Climate contrarians who oppose taking action to slow global warming have focused their arguments on the past 18 years, during which time the warming of surface temperatures temporarily slowed down (it’s now speeding back up). The latest version of the NOAA method to adjust the temperatures made the slowdown a little smaller, and that didn’t sit well with those contrarians. Lamar Smith soon began making conspiratorial accusations and demanding NOAA scientists’ emails. Last week, he convened a hearing in the House Science Committee and claimed, with no supporting evidence or basis in reality, An example of how this administration promotes its suspect climate agenda can be seen at the National Oceanographic [sic] and Atmospheric Administration. Its employees altered historical climate data to get politically correct results in an attempt to disprove the eighteen year lack of global temperature increases. NOAA conveniently issued its news release that promotes this report just as the administration announced its extensive climate change regulations. Study shows the adjustments work well The new study published in Geophysical Research Letters by Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth, Kevin Cowtan at the University of York, and Matthew Menne and Claude Williams Jr. at NOAA, set out to test how well the adjustments are working. Contrarians’ biggest complaints focus on urban heat sources near land temperature stations, and scientists’ adjustments to remove that urban heat contamination. To check how well those particular adjustments work, NOAA set up a network of pristinely located temperature stations across the USA that they could use as a reference. The authors of the study explain: To help resolve uncertainties caused by reliance on the historical network, NOAA began setting up a U.S. Climate Reference Network starting in 2001. The Climate Reference Network includes 114 stations spaced throughout the U.S. that are well sited and away from cities. They have three temperature sensors that measure every two seconds and automatically send in data via satellite uplink. The reference network is intended to give us a good sense of changes in temperatures going forward, largely free from the issues that plagued the historical network. With more than a decade’s worth of this pristine reference data available, the study authors were able to compare it to the raw and adjusted data. The US land temperature adjustments have the biggest impact on the trend from the 1950s to 1990s, because that’s when there were changes in the time of day at which the measurements were recorded, and in the technology used to take the temperatures. The authors found the adjustments don’t have any significant effect on the average temperature or warming trend since 2004. Lead author Zeke Hausfather explained, Over the last decade there are plenty of issues with the raw data, but they tend to roughly cancel out in their trend effects. The study showed that the averaged raw and adjusted US land temperature data are both very close to the pristine reference data during that period of 2004–2015. FacebookTwitterPinterest Comparison of monthly average adjusted USHCN (historical network of adjusted data) and USCRN (reference network) temperatures between January 2004 and October 2015. Illustration: Hausfather et al. (2016), Geophysical Research Letters However, while they don’t have much effect on the average US land temperature trend since 2004, the authors found that the adjustments bring the data from individual stations closer to their nearby pristine reference measurements. FacebookTwitterPinterest Comparison of the distribution of temperature trend differences between proximate raw (blue), adjusted (red), and reference network (green) station pairs. If the raw or adjusted data had identical trends to the reference network, they would match the green shaded area perfectly. Illustration: Hausfather et al. (2016), Geophysical Research Letters In short, NOAA’s adjustments are doing what they’re supposed to do – removing biases in the raw data to make it more accurately reflect the true temperature changes at each measurement station. As lead author Zeke Hausfather told me, NOAA’s necessary corrections to biases in temperature data have come under a lot of poorly informed criticism in the past few months. Our new study as well as a great deal of prior research shows that adjustments to temperature stations are effective at removing biases introduced by station moves, instrument changes, and other factors. The fact that adjustments make the old historical network more similar to the new Climate Reference Network strongly suggests that they are getting it right. Conspiracy theories are strongly linked to science denial, but as is usually the case, this particular conspiracy theory has no basis in reality. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ure-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine
Excellent postings Jem. In addition, the current cold is likely a result of less solar radiation and increased volcanic activity. These arrogant Progressives think that Man has some great power to change the climate of the Earth.---Man does not have that power in the least---This chart is all one needs to know about global warming. Pay attention to 1100 BC
Furthermore, the Earth is ice-free at the poles much more than it is not. We are currently in a period where there is ice, but ice has been retreating for 18000 years!!! Man has nothing to do with the retreat of ice. ---Instead be glad that we live in a period warm enough to make it comfortable.