As past readers of this site already know I am frequently amused at the inconsistency of data promoted by the Global Warmers. I know, it's a dirty job monitoring these bunch of incompetents but I actually enjoy it. You see, it's too easy if you can only read.
I recently reviewed data published by the National Climatic Data Center, a USA government organization paid for with your tax dollars. Click here for a link to their announcement. However, let me prep you on what a very quick read showed me. The whole article is about the hottest June on record and the hottest 12 month period ever on planet Earth. When you look at the map they present, click on it to enlarge it and you will find some interesting reading. Conflicts I immediately noticed are as follows:
(1) "The USA had scorching temperatures in June resulting in the warmest 12 month period since national records started in 1895." Then they state "June average global land and ocean temperatures were the 4th warmest since records began in 1880." I know it might seem I am being petty but when did the records begin? 1895 or 1880? Small point but not insignificant because these scoundrels likely mix apples and oranges in their analyses. If you want to confuse the truth use a different baseline each time. One time include the range of years which will maximize the temperature. The next time use a different one which will keep out a cooler period which destroys your arguments. Keep reading.
(2) Going back to the first statement in quotes above I listened with my own two ears to a report on the Weather Channel which said that "despite lots of record high temps during the end of June, overall June was slightly below average for the United States." Who do we believe?
(3) "Australia was below average for June." Well, we all know there are hot spots and cold spots on the planet and they do move around.
(4) "New Zealand experienced its coolest maximum temperatures in over 130 years." Well let's take 2012 and back up 130 years. We find that the year is 1882. Okay, guys which year do we take for a baseline? 1895? 1880? or 1882? I am a retired CPA as well as a meteorologist and also have a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics. One of the base concepts of accounting and numbers is consistency of presentation. You use the same standard every time and your numbers will be better than if you use one baseline on some numbers and a different baseline on other numbers. I know if your going to cook the books, so to speak, you do compare apples and oranges and hope that no one notices, that your analysis just slides right by.
(5) I understand that there could have been a lingering cold pocket over Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the planet could have been very warm. No argument from me there. I like the consistency that their area of the planet was cold. However, let's look at their map for other anomalies. Hummm. See it? Finland had the coolest June since 2004. How could that be with heat flaming all around it's tiny perimeter? Something is wrong somewhere! That is not possible. There could not have been one little spot of cooler air just lingering over Finland. It had to be part of a cooling trend over the whole region.
(6) Notice as you read their statements that sometimes they use "average worldwide land and oceanic temperatures" and in other statements they only use "worldwide land" temperatures. Apples and oranges. Also, how in the heck did they have data for ocean temperatures early last century or much less in the eighteen hundreds. Oh, yeah, now I remember. Patrick O'Brien, in one of his fictional accounts of the life of a British Naval officer, relates their having kept logs on the daily sea water temperature on their travels. Hey, that's really scientific. Right. Besides it was recorded in a hit movie "Master and Commander Far Side of the World". If Hollywood put it in a movie it has to be true. Right? How much data was left out? Were there ships covering all of the oceans 24 hours a day? I don't think so. Did they all make it back home with their data? I don't think so. Trying to compare data for the early 20th century and the late 19th century is like apples and oranges.
(6) Notice as you read their statements that sometimes they use "average worldwide land and oceanic temperatures" and in other statements they only use "worldwide land" temperatures. Apples and oranges. Also, how in the heck did they have data for ocean temperatures early last century or much less in the eighteen hundreds. Oh, yeah, now I remember. Patrick O'Brien, in one of his fictional accounts of the life of a British Naval officer, relates their having kept logs on the daily sea water temperature on their travels. Hey, that's really scientific. Right. Besides it was recorded in a hit movie "Master and Commander Far Side of the World". If Hollywood put it in a movie it has to be true. Right? How much data was left out? Were there ships covering all of the oceans 24 hours a day? I don't think so. Did they all make it back home with their data? I don't think so. Trying to compare data for the early 20th century and the late 19th century is like apples and oranges.
(7) If we look at their map again we will notice that ONLY the US was in a red heat zone of abnormal temperatures. If you followed Climategate you remember that the Global Warmers lied about numbers and were caught red handed. Are they doing it again? If so we need to burn them at the stake! All the dollars wasted in industry trying to meet every higher standards! All the government dollars wasted on fabricated studies, new ineffective laws targeting their pet peeves, needless regulations. All a waste. All driving the United States towards a slow motion bankruptcy.
(8) Let's discuss a little microclimatology and see if we can find any other discrepencies. I spent June in Palm Bay, Florida. I was amazed at the temperatures. I had expected brutal heat and humidity normally associated with that area. I held my breath all month as the average high temperatures were in the low eighties. Low nineties would have been expected. Do these lower temperatures make the headlines? No, indeedy. Are they averaged in with the rest of the country to come up with a national average. Who knows? Only James Hansen and his global warming buddies at NASA.
(9) Friends in Northern Nevada complained to me how cool it was in June. Does that show on the map? No.
One point in favor of warming statistics. Even though the daily high temperature was cooler than normal in Palm Bay and the surrounding areas, the daily low was consistently three to four degrees higher than normal. Humidity keeps nightly temperatures from falling lower than they might have in a dryer climate and it was likely more humid than normal. However, most of us are interested in how hot the high temperature for the day was. When these people speak of global warming it doesn't mean that its getting hotter each day although they would like you to believe it was. Would you rather accept living on a planet where it is a little warmer at night but a little cooler during the day? Certainly better than one where it is hotter than Hades during the day. However, many of the weather statistics can be misleading because of averaging in the low temperatures and you cannot tell because certain so called scientists are falsifying the statistics.
Tal Leverett
No comments:
Post a Comment